FEBRUARY 2, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD FEBRUARY 16,2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Rolfe Voltaire
Mr. Jon Caron, Selectmen Representative Ms. Judi Thibault, Alternate
Ms. Kay Kyle
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Bill Booth, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Recording Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05pm.
The Chair asked Mr. Booth to sit for Mr. Rourke and Mr. Curry to sit for Mr. Voltaire.
PUBLIC HEARING-GATCHELL:
Mr. Smith read a letter on behalf of Gatchell asking for a continuance to March 2, 2005 while they worked out agreements between Nottingham and Northwood.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to continue the public hearing for Gatchell to March 2, 2005. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Kyle voted against the motion. The motion passed 6-1.
PUBLIC HEARING-BUILDING INSPECTOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
At 7:09pm the Chair called to order the public hearing about the recommendations from the Building Inspector.
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Association, Mr. Paul Colby, Nottingham Building Inspector
Mr. Smith said that the articles the Building Inspector was recommending had to do with FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), the fee schedule, the wetlands definition, and the building code. Mr. Seaverns asked if the maps were dated correctly. Ms. Copeland said yes. She said that the maps had to be finalized by the date stated. Mr. Colby said that they had maps which had been given to them by FEMA. He said that the maps had arrived after the date in New Hampshire on which they could become legal. He said that because of that New Hampshire had been granted a 1 year stay in making the maps effective. He said that FEMA had come up with the date. Mr. Seaverns asked if the maps would be posted. Mr. Colby said yes.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion that the Planning Board recommend the adoption of warrant article #2. Mr. Caron seconded that motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Kyle abstained from the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with 1 abstention.
Mr. Caron said that the wording in article 3 was the state and federal wetlands definition. He cited RSA 67455.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board recommend adopting warrant article #3. Ms. Kyle seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Caron said that article 4 took the current references to BOCA out of the building code. Mr. Colby said that BOCA had basically been replaced by ICC. He said that state law recommended that each town adopt this change.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board recommend adopting warrant article #4. Mr. Seaverns seconded that motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Smith, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Caron, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Caron said that his only comment regarding article 5 was that it made more sense for the Board of Selectmen to decide the fee schedule than for anyone else to do it.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board recommend adopting warrant article #5. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Caron said that if the Selectmen were able to set the fee than they could put in that they did not want a fee for building permits under a certain size which would affect the last article. Mr. Smith said that it was too late for the Board to change the article. Mr. Colby said that any structure larger than 200 square feet needed to have a building permit. He said that 200 square feet was the maximum. Mr. Caron said that the Planning Board would need another public hearing to change the amount in the article to 200 square feet. He said that there was not enough time for them to hold another public hearing. Mr. Gylfphe suggested that they keep the warrant article at 145 square feet for this year and introduce another article the next year that changed the amount to 200 square feet.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board recommend adopting the warrant article relating to building permits and structure size. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Curry, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth, and Ms. Kyle voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Caron and Mr. Seaverns voted against the motion. The motion passed 5-2.
PUBLIC HEARING- GERRIOR LAND TRUST:
Mr. Malcolm McNeill said that he had given a complete presentation of this project to the Planning Board on November 17, 2004. He said that this project was partially in Nottingham and partially in Barrington. He said that they had bought 12 lots in Nottingham with access from Route 4. He said that they had bought 25 lots in Barrington. He talked about access from St. Matthews Drive to Wood Drive and he talked about the condition of a class 5 road. He said that there had been an issue about that in Barrington because there was an absence of records of the formal process for class 5 roads. He said that they had been told by the Board of Selectmen in Barrington that when the Barrington Planning Board approved the plan they would provide something in writing to Nottingham stating that the road would be
utilized. He said that there were not any outstanding issues and that they would be utilizing a cul-de-sac. He said that there had been a request to change the name of the roadway to Homestead. He said that the plan was to have a simplistic layout in Nottingham. He said that no variances would be requested. He said that there were more complex issues in Barrington. He said that they had done an environmental impact and traffic study on this plan. He said that Ed Minic had not reviewed all the information yet. Mr. Sean Malone said that he would like to talk a little about engineering information. He said that he did not have any comments from Ed Minic. He said that the Berger Group had reviewed the entire project design and traffic study on behalf of Barrington and they had approved them. He said that Captain Trumbell from the Nottingham Fire Department had been fine with the plan. He said that the fire chiefs
in both Nottingham and Barrington had said that it would not be a problem to have a cistern which would be used by both towns. He said that the permit was being reviewed by the Department of Environmental Services and that they were looking at getting a permit from the Department of Transportation. Ms. Amanda Barker said that she was a part of New Hampshire Soil Consultants. She showed the Board the Environmental Impact Assessment report from December of 2004. She said that the information from that report had been included in the design of the subdivision. She said that they would hold the proposed conservation easement at this time because it was being discussed by the Barrington Conservation Commission. She said that the wetlands permit application was just about complete. She said that Strafford Regional Planning Commission had reviewed the environmental impact of this proposed subdivision. Mr. Steve Chote said that he was going
to talk about hydrogeology. He said that he had been asked by a citizen to look at the cumulative effect between this development and the proposed USA Springs project. He said that this was 4,100ft away from the proposed USA Springs development and it would be outside the area of impact of USA Springs. He said that there would not be any cumulative impact between the two based on the area of impact he had been given by USA Springs. He said that homeowners used about 400 gallons of water per day and he said that was considered non consumptive. He said that he had also looked at the possible surface water impact. He said that he had looked at the USGS study draft data. He said that there had been low detection limits and low concentrations. He said that the water quality was good. He said that there should be no adverse impact to the surface water. He said that the vernal pool which was close to Route 4 was stagnant.
Mr. Curry asked about the mitigation of the wetlands and the vernal pool. Ms. Barker said that it was a high quality vernal pool. She said that there was erosion into the vernal pool and Route 4 did have an impact on the vernal pool. She said that they had tried to expand into less valuable wetland and they were trying to increase the vegetation buffer around the vernal pool. She said that they were trying to improve the environment. Mr. Seaverns asked if this had been discussed with the Nottingham Conservation Commission. Ms. Barker said yes. She said that they thought it was reasonable. Mr. Jeffrey Dirk said that there would be a measurable but minor impact in traffic issues. He said that there would be signs and pavement markings and he said that they would provide a widened shoulder. Mr. Curry asked if they had spoken with Chief English about this. Mr. Dirk said that there were confidentiality issues as far
as the police letting them look at accident reports. He said that the state gave them the number of accidents that occurred at that intersection over the previous year. Mr. Curry asked whether the police department needed to review this plan. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought the police department should be involved. He said that he was concerned about left hand turns. Mr. Dirk said that safety was very important. He said that the primary issue was line of sight. He said that the average speed in that area was 60 miles per hour. He said that they needed to have an adequate line of sight. Mr. Seaverns said that they were talking about 37 lots. He said that he was surprised the Department of Transportation had accepted this. He said that he thought the safer intersection would be at Merry Hill Road. Mr. Dirk said that St. Matthews had sight line limitations. He said that historically the number of crashes
was low. Mr. Caron pointed out that the owners of the homes could choose which entrance they felt most comfortable using. Mr. Jim Fisk said that he had an economic impact analysis. He said that the executive summary was that he knew Nottingham had concerns about residential growth. He said that there would be no need to raise the tax rates because of this development. He said that there were 3 factors that brought him to that conclusion. He said that the cost of new houses was higher, the growth had not shown up in the school enrollment, and the development would bring in positive revenue. He said that he thought the town was prepared for growth. Mr. McNeil said that according to the law the Planning Board had 30 days to approve the plan. Ms. Copeland said that the Strafford Regional Planning Commission had concerns about the adjacent conservation easements. She said that those needed to be accurately reflected on the site
plan. She said that the underground utilities should be on the revised plan. She said that there had been a joint public hearing with Barrington and progress had been made. She said that Barrington had accepted the plan as complete. She said that in regards to the Interim Growth Management Ordinance she did not think this project would be a part of that because the application had been substantially complete on November 17, 2004. Mr. Smith asked if counsel had been approached about this issue. Mr. Caron said no. Mr. Smith said that he was concerned that the applications for state subdivision and wetlands had not been submitted yet. Mr. Caron asked if the subdivision plan was conditional on getting approval to use Route 4. Mr. McNeil said that they would need to use Route 4. He said that the town would own the road from the subdivision to Route 4. He said that it would be brought to the correct specifications and then
turned over to the town. Mr. Seaverns asked if there would be a phasing in of this subdivision. Mr. McNeil said that phasing would be inherent due to the size of the subdivision. He said that they were going to start building in Nottingham and go towards Barrington. Mr. Curry asked if the impact statement was complete and valid. Ms. Copeland said that it was moving in a direction the Planning Board would look favorably on. Mr. Smith said that the Interim Growth Management Ordinance probably should not apply in this case. Mr. McNeil said that the Interim Growth Management Ordinance in Northwood had been effective on the date of posting. He said that the Interim Growth Management Ordinance in Nottingham had not been adopted yet. He said that it would be devastating for the project if they were bound by the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He said that Nottingham had an extremely high standard for acceptance of plans. Mr. Smith said that in order for a plan to be
accepted they had to have applied for state subdivision and wetland permits. Mr. McNeil said that they were filing a complete application. He said that according to the state regulations the information they had provided was sufficient. Ms. Barker said that she had an official pre application meeting with the wetlands bureau and she had a paper which had been signed by the manager. She said that the application for the wetlands permit was complete but she was waiting to send it until they got acceptance from Barrington because she did not want to have to revise the application after it had been submitted. Mr. Seaverns said that viewpoint was understandable. He said that the Planning Board had not discussed this application with their lawyer. He said that the information was in the right direction. He said that a vote by the Planning Board accepting the application would not change anything. He said that he did not see a problem
with working through the plan. He said that the vote on the Interim Growth Management Ordinance also might not pass. Mr. McNeil said that towns did not vote down growth ordinances. He said that their plan should have been accepted in November. He said that the Planning Board should accept their plan that night. He said that the Interim Growth Management Ordinance would not be valid until the effective date. He said that he felt their plan was in acceptable form despite the fact that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services site specific application had not been made. Mr. Smith said that there needed to be 2 entrances and exits. He said that they did not have anything from Barrington stating that. Mr. McNeil said that he felt acceptance of the plan was in order. Ms. Copeland said that there were 2 requests for waivers. Mr. McNeil said that those were both very minor. Mr. Seaverns said that #5 on
the checklist had not been done. He said that the Planning Board needed to discuss the application with their lawyer regarding the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He said that the Planning Board could waive the requirement for completion of #5 before accepting the plan. Mr. Caron said that there was an equity argument. Mr. McNeil said that making this project subject to the restrictions of the Interim Growth Management Ordinance would shut down the whole thing. He said that this was a unique case and he said that the lawyer was likely to go with the judgement of the Board. Ms. Kyle said that this application had been in the pipeline so it should not be subject to the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. Mr. McNeil said that accepting the plan meant that the plan could be processed. He said that was not the same thing as approving the plan. He said that the town would be protected. Mr. Smith asked if the applicant
wanted the Planning Board to vote on the waiver of #5. Mr. Curry suggested that the applicant recess to February 16, 2005. Mr. Seaverns said that the necessary discussions with lawyers could be worked out in the next 2 weeks. Mr. McNeil asked if he could have a few minutes to discuss this with the applicant and the experts involved.
Mr. Curry made a motion to recess the Gerrior Land Trust public hearing for 10 minutes. Ms. Kyle seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns, and Mr. Caron voted in favor of this motion. The motion passed 7-0.
BOND REDUCTION-TATEM:
At 9:00pm the Chair called to order the bond reduction hearing for Dan Tatem.
Mr. Tatem said that the original bond amount had been for $1.52 million. He said he wanted to make a recommendation the Board accept $.94 million. He said that at Brook Crossing the reclamation of the roadway was 65% complete.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to reduce the letter of credit from $42,500.00 to $14,875.00. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Gylfphe voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to release Dunbarton Estates from their letter of credit of $14,700.00. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Gylfphe voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry abstained from the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention.
Mr. Caron made a motion to reset the bond for Brook Crossing to $940,972.97 and post that. Mr. Gylfphe seconded that motion. Mr. Caron, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Curry, Ms. Kyle and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Curry talked about granite bounds and lot markers on property lines at Dunbarton Estates. He was told that there were a lot of shared driveways at Dunbarton Estates.
PUBLIC HEARING- GERRIOR LAND TRUST (CONTINUED):
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to reopen the public hearing on the Gerrior Land Trust at 9:15pm. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Curry, Ms. Kyle and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. McNeil said that the applicant would like to continue the hearing at the next meeting.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the Gerrior Land Trust public hearing to 7:45pm on February 16, 2005. Ms. Kyle seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Curry and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- PSNH SCENIC ROADS:
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Crane, Arborist
At 9:20pm the Chair opened the public hearing for PSNH Scenic Roads.
Mr. Crane said that they normally trimmed trees near power lines on a 5 year cycle. He said that in this case they wanted to move it up on the schedule because this particular landowner had power outages 2.5 times more than the average PSNH customer. He said that PSNH would like to take down one tree but they needed to talk to the landowner. He said that it was very infrequent when PSNH could not compromise with landowners. He showed the Board a map and pointed to where PSNH wanted to cut down the tree.
Mr. Caron made a motion that the Planning Board grant PSNH permission to cut and trim trees around power lines as necessary. Ms. Kyle seconded the motion. Mr. Caron, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Curry and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- NELSON 2 LOT SUBDIVISION:
At 9:25pm the Chair opened the hearing for the Nelson 2 lot subdivision on Garland Road.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Pete Landry, Mr. Rod Nelson, Ms. Julie Nelson and Mr. Dan Regan
Mr. Landry said that he had added the state subdivision approval number to the plans. He said that he had also added the waiver number and the 911 number. He said that he had added the contiguous upland letter and the new boundary marker on the property.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the Planning Board accept and approve the Nelson 2 lot subdivision plan. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
OTHER COMMENTS:
Ms. Bonser said that in relation to the Gerrior Land Trust she would like to know if Nottingham could get a letter from the Department of Environmental Services saying that there would be no impact between that project and USA Springs. She said that she would also like to know who owned the road in Nottingham.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to reduce the bond for Shannon Subdivision to $14,873.98. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry, Mr. Caron, Ms. Kyle and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Smith said that the money the Planning Board spent for Strafford Regional Planning was over $10,000. Mr. Seaverns said that it did not count as a capital improvement unless you were physically able to touch it. Mr. Smith said that he would bring in the capital improvement planning figure. Ms. Bonser said that she would look further at the capital improvement planning definition. Mr. Seaverns said that only physical stuff could be put into the capital improvement plan.
Mr. Curry made a motion to approve the minutes of January 19, 2005 as amended. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Ms. Kyle and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Curry made a motion to go into nonpublic session.
Mr. Seaverns said that he had some more stuff to talk about in public.
Mr. Curry withdrew his motion.
Mr. Caron made a motion to approve the nonpublic minutes from December 15, 2004. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. Mr. Caron, Mr. Booth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns and Ms. Kyle voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board still needed to set aside time to talk about the land use section of the master plan.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the minutes of December 8, 2004. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. A vote was not taken because there were not enough people present who had been at the meeting to vote on this motion.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the minutes of January 5, 2005. Mr. Curry seconded that motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Curry, Mr. Booth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns and Ms. Kyle voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
(Mr. Caron left a little early.)
Mr. Seaverns said that they needed to talk about the Clark subdivision. He said that the house was gone but the lot line adjustment had not taken place. He said that they did not have an approved subdivision. He said that the Planning Board needed to write a letter because the subdivision had not taken place. He said that 7 lots plus had already existed but only 6 were buildable. He said that because the lot line adjustment had not happened the subdivision was in limbo. He said that they either needed to create one large lot or they needed to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments for a frontage variance. He said that he thought they should propose a new lot line adjustment. Mr. Smith asked if there was the potential for a back lot subdivision. Mr. Seaverns said no.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00pm. Ms. Kyle seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry, Mr. Booth and Mr. Seaverns voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
