FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD APRIL 20, 2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Jon Caron, Selectmen Representative
Mr. Skip Seaverns Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate Ms. Kay Kyle
Mr. Bill Booth, Alternate Ms. Judi Thibault, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. John Teague, Attorney for Planning Board
Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
The Chair asked Mr. Curry to sit for Mr. Rourke and Mr. Booth to sit for Mr. Voltaire.
MINUTES:
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of February 9, 2005. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Smith voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry abstained from the motion. The motion passed 3-0 with 1 abstention.
PUBLIC HEARING- ESTATE OF NATALIE GOOCH:
The Chair opened the public hearing on the estate of Natalie Gooch at 7:13pm.
At this point Ms. Bonser arrived to sit for Mr. Caron.
Mr. Peter Landry spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that they were talking about 7 acres with an existing house. He said that it was between North River Road and 152. He said that they wanted to create a 3.16 acre lot with 200 feet of frontage. He said that they would get a 911 number for the lot. He said that they had a letter from the Fire Department. He said that the Fire Chief had recommended sprinklers because the cistern was a distance away. Mr. Seaverns asked if new habitable structures were being built. Mr. Smith asked about new construction on the property. Mr. Seaverns asked if there was a driveway permit for the other house on the property. Mr. Landry said that the records did not mention anything about that. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Landry had a waiver request
for the cistern ordinance. He said that the driveway width should be 12-16'. Mr. Seaverns said that the applicant needed to request a cistern waiver. Mr. Landry said that he would write something out. Mr. Curry asked if there was a concern about the 50ft wetland setbacks. Mr. Smith read the cistern waiver request out loud.
Ms. Bonser made a motion that the Planning Board accept the waiver request subject to the Fire Department recommendations that sprinklers be required on new habitable structures and put onto the plan.
Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board had been requiring sprinklers if there was not a cistern nearby. Mr. Curry said that they needed clarification of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Curry seconded Ms. Bonser's motion.
Mr. Curry said that he thought the Planning Board should require sprinklers. Mr. Seaverns noted that there was plenty of water in the area.
Ms. Bonser withdrew her motion. Mr. Curry withdrew his second.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to accept the request for a cistern waiver. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion based on the location of the North River. Ms. Bonser, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Smith asked about the septic requirements. Mr. Landry said that the property was 3 feet above the water table. Mr. Smith asked if the applicant had applied for septic. Mr. Landry said no. Mr. Smith said that he was concerned about flooding.
Mr. Curry made a motion to accept the application. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Smith, Ms. Bonser, and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Curry suggested that the Board have Ms. Copeland look at the application. Ms. Copeland asked if the Board wanted the Rockingham County Conservation District to look at it. Mr. Smith asked if there were any requirements that needed to be followed in a flood hazard zone. Mr. Landry said that the flood zone was shown on the map. Mr. Smith asked how they figured the flood zone. Mr. Landry said that it was a guess. Ms. Copeland said that the new maps were not based on new study.
Mr. Curry made a motion to ask the Strafford Regional Planning Commission to review the application. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Curry made a motion to recess the application to March 2, 2005 at 7:15pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-JAMES FERNALD:
The Chair opened the public hearing on the subdivision application from James Fernald at 7:45pm.
The representative of Mr. Fernald said that they had done a lot line adjustment on 41 acres. He said that they wanted to subdivide the adjusted lot into lots of 12.72 acres, 13 acres and 15 acres. Mr. Seaverns asked if each lot had a driveway permit. The representative of Mr. Fernald said that there would be a shared driveway. Mr. Smith asked about permits for future subdivisions. Mr. Seaverns said that there was the potential for that. He pointed out note #9 and he suggested that the applicant determine which permits were applicable to this particular subdivision and put them on this plan. He said that there was confusion about the number of lots being created. The representative for the applicant said that 2 additional lots were being created. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board
had more documentation than they had plans provided. The representative of Mr. Fernald said that they had gotten the state subdivision approvals before the Interim Growth Management Ordinance had been put into place. He said that the lots were all larger than 5 acres. Mr. Smith asked about granite bounds. The representative of Mr. Fernald said that they would replace the granite bounds with disks. Mr. Curry asked where the driveway would be placed. Mr. Smith said that the location of the house should be shown on the plan. He said that the applicant also needed 911 numbers. The representative for the applicant said that he would ask for a waiver request as far as cisterns and sprinklers. Mr. Smith said that the plans needed to go to the Fire Department first before they could get a waiver.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to ask the Strafford Regional Planning Commission to review the application from Mr. Fernald. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. Ms. Bonser, Mr. Curry, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the James Fernald application to March 16, 2005 at 7:15pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-LINDA FERNALD:
The Chair opened the public hearing on the subdivision application from Linda Fernald at 8:10pm.
The representative for Ms. Fernald said that there were permits and a pre-existing driveway. He said that he already knew some things that were needed based on the previous discussion. Mr. Seaverns asked if they were creating 2 additional lots here as well.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to have the Strafford Regional Planning Commission review the application from Ms. Fernald. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
One of the abutters present asked if the Fernalds were planning to subdivide the land further. The representative for the Fernalds said that they were looking to do a total of 10 lots. The abutter asked about the number of driveways. The representative for the Fernalds said that there would be no more than 3 driveways per parcel. He said that was the reason they had done the lot line adjustment.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the Linda Fernald application to March 16, 2005 at 7:30pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-GERRIOR LAND TRUST:
The Chair opened the public hearing for Gerrior Land Trust at 8:20pm.
Mr. McNeill introduced himself and Mr. Shields. He said that they had been to Barrington and they were one meeting away from approval in Barrington. He said that the Nottingham and Barrington approvals were going to be contingent on each other. He said that he had spoken with Mr. Teague about this. He said that this application had been submitted on September 14, 2004. He said that by state law the Planning Board had 30 days to accept the application. He said that had not happened. He said that on November 17, 2004 the applicant had not had any idea that Nottingham was planning an Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He said that Ms. Copeland had given the Board good information when she said that the plan had been reasonably complete for acceptance on November 17, 2004. He said that he
found the Nottingham regulations to be unique. He said that they had not felt it would be appropriate to file paperwork with the state yet since they were dealing with two communities and some road questions, etc. He said that they had a complete plan in November when they had done their traffic study. He said that Barrington had asked their counsel about the roadway issues. He said that he had a letter to submit from the Barrington attorney. Mr. Curry asked for some clarification. Mr. McNeill said that the town owned the strip of road because they had taken the deed from the previous owner when he did not pay his taxes on it. He said that it would be a public road servicing the subdivision. He said that when Barrington approved the plan the Board of Selectmen would write a letter allowing them to fix the roadway to specifications and have it be a public roadway. He said that they wanted the Nottingham Planning Board to accept
the plan and have it be exempt from the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He said that the Board needed to rule the application had been complete before the Interim Growth Management Ordinance had gone into effect or they needed to accept the plan and vote for it to be exempt from the ordinance. Mr. Seaverns said that it was clear the applicant had not initiated certain paperwork with the state but he said they had checked it off on the check list. Mr. Smith asked why approval in Barrington was conditional on Nottingham. Mr. McNeill said that both towns needed to be involved with drainage issues and road information, etc. Mr. Curry said that the minutes of November 17, 2004 stated that the Board members felt the application was incomplete. He said that even with the Interim Growth Management Ordinance the applicant could do 3 lots and build a road. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Interim Growth Management Ordinance would not prohibit them
from building a road. Mr. McNeill said that the economic reality of this was that they could not do just 3 lots. Mr. Seaverns said that was the decision of the applicant not the Planning Board. Mr. McNeill said that they had discussed Barrington and cul-de-sac requirements. Mr. Curry said that on November 17, 2004 members of the Planning Board had specifically pointed out deficiencies in the application. He asked about the effect on other people who had asked to do subdivisions that did not fit the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He asked if there was risk. Mr. McNeill said yes but he said that each application should be looked at separately. Ms. Bonser said that part of the purpose of the Interim Growth Management Ordinance was to free some time so the Planning Board could look at their ordinances and make necessary changes. Mr. Curry cited RSA 676:12 Section 6. He said that the way he read the RSA the Planning Board
did not have a choice. Mr. McNeill said that they had talked about the Interim Growth Management Ordinances in Farmington and Northwood. He said that the one in Farmington did not include dates and the one in Northwood stated a specific date. He said that the Nottingham Interim Growth Management Ordinance had stated it would be effective at adoption. Mr. Teague said that the Planning Board should decide whether this particular subdivision application had been complete in November. He said that he did not believe the Planning Board could exempt applications from the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He said that hypothetically looking ahead if the Interim Growth Management Ordinance passed everyone at some point would have some chance of being reversed if they started making exemptions. Mr. Curry asked how the Planning Board could reverse history. Mr. Teague said that the Planning Board needed to look at what they would have done if
they had proceeded with the application before the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He said that either direction the Board decided to take would be legitimate. He said that state law decided when the ordinance would be effective. He said that was the date of posting but he said that the law referred to when the Building Inspector was asked to issue the building permits. Mr. McNeill said that the applicant had initiated the process of submitting the application and the application had been substantially complete in November prior to the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. Mr. Curry said that he felt conflicted on this. He said that it would be fair to the applicant for the Planning Board to accept the application but he said that the law was black and white and the Planning Board should follow the law because there had been other applicants. Ms. Bonser noted that the people on the Board were different from those that had been on the
Board in November. Mr. Curry said that there had been concerns raised by the Planning Board which were stated in the minutes from November.
Mr. Steve Conklin said that he was from Barrington and he wanted to make a few comments. He said that the Barrington Selectmen had not made a decision. He said that they had been given a path by their attorney. He said that the Selectmen would be looking for public input. He said that the Planning Board decision in Barrington was not one meeting away. He said that the impact statement not complete yet. Mr. Curry said that in November concerns had been brought up about the pond. Ms. Bonser said that the Nottingham Planning Board had used their normal practice and procedure in November. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Board should have made a decision in November because it knew that the Interim Growth Management Ordinance was coming. Ms. Bonser said that the applicant should have gotten
their information to the Board more quickly. Mr. Curry noted that there had been information in writing from Ms. Copeland stating that the application was substantially complete.
Mr. Seaverns made the following motion:
Based on the applicant's request for a decision as to whether this application may proceed in light of the Interim Growth Management Ordinance (IGMO) posted December 17, 2004, it is the feeling of this Board that the application for Gerrior Land Trust was "considered substantially complete sufficient to invoke jurisdiction to obtain approval" (see 676:4.I(b)) by our minutes of November 17, 2004 and by the Strafford Regional Planning Commission review report submitted for that meeting. No decision of acceptance was made that evening, as a couple of technical issues were outstanding. Due to unavoidable recesses (weather-related), the next opportunity for the applicant to request acceptance was February 2, 2005. Due to the applicant's concerns related to the Interim Growth Management Ordinance and the Board's
need to consult with counsel on the issue, the Board did not accept the application that night either. Tonight, after consultation with counsel and an additional request for the Board to provide direction in this matter, it is the sense of this Board that this application may proceed.
Mr. Curry seconded the motion.
Mr. Seaverns said that the intent of his motion was to describe the history and provide the rationale for this decision.
Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Booth and Mr. Smith voted in favor of this motion. Ms. Bonser and Mr. Curry voted against this motion. The motion passed 3-2.
Mr. Curry made a motion to accept the subdivision application from Gerrior Land Trust. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. Mr. Booth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry and Mr. Seaverns voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Bonser voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-1.
Mr. Smith said that the applicant would need to get 911 numbers and that they would need to talk to the Fire Chief. Ms. Copeland said that she was still waiting for the Ed Minnick report and she had questions about the Berger report. Mr. Smith said that he still had questions about the impact of the proximity of the subdivision to USA Springs. He said that he thought that should be part of the impact statement. Ms. Copeland said that the Board could look at protective measures. Mr. Seaverns talked about conservation zones. Ms. Copeland said that the conservation zones promoted connectivity. She showed the Board a map of conservation land. Mr. Seaverns noted that the land crossed town lines. Ms. Copeland said that a note had been added to the plan for that. She said that it was
consistent with how this had been done with other subdivisions. Mr. Seaverns said that the applicant would need to get new lot numbers and 911 numbers. He said that they could not create a non buildable lot. Mr. Smith said that they could create a special tract and put a playground or something on it. Mr. Curry said that they would need a special meeting for that. Mr. McNeill said that they would need a waiver for the intersection because it was supposed to be 90 degrees but it was actually approximately 86 degrees. Ms. Copeland said that they needed to discuss the conservation restrictions. Mr. Smith asked what the Board thought of the waiver request. Mr. Seaverns said that he would support a waiver but he said that it was a private drive.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to grant the waiver request to allow an 85 degree intersection instead of 90 degrees. Mr. Curry seconded that motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Curry, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth and Ms. Bonser voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Smith said that there was another waiver request involving land. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought the Board needed more time on that one. He said that he thought they should have a discussion about stone walls and the width of the road. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board might have further questions later. Ms. Copeland said that the Planning Board might want to consider looking at the minimum depths to answer questions from the public who were concerned about a drought. Mr. Seaverns said that all wells drilled in Nottingham since the year 2000 went below 700 feet deep. He said that information had come from their well survey and he said that they had gotten a 25% return on that survey. He said that the depth thing was not applicable anymore.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to recess the subdivision application from Gerrior Land Trust until March 16, 2005 at 8:00pm. Mr. Booth seconded that motion. Ms. Bonser, Mr. Booth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION OF PAYMENT PROCESS:
Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board needed to have a discussion of an escrow account for the Strafford Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Seaverns said that the money from USA Springs should go to the town and the town should pay the right people. He said that every application should have an evaluation that set up the escrow. He said that Planning Board needed to establish a process as well as define classifications of subdivisions and amounts that should be put in escrow accounts. He said that the applicant should pay up front. Ms. Bonser said that nothing should be spent before the application was accepted. Ms. Copeland pointed out that her services were used before applications were accepted.
DISCUSSION OF HOYT BOND RELEASE REQUEST:
At 11:07pm the Chair opened discussion on the Hoyt bond release request.
Mr. Smith read a letter from the Rockingham County Conservation District dated December 17th. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought the Planning Board needed to forward the request from Hoyt to the Rockingham County Conservation District for evaluation. He said that it appeared the latest document they had from the Rockingham County Conservation District was dated December 17, 2003. He suggested they enclose a copy of that in their request that the Rockingham County Conservation System review this.
OTHER DISCUSSION:
The Board noted a memo from the Building Inspector where he asked if the Board needed any documentation for town meeting. Mr. Curry said that he thought there should be a graph of town growth for the town meeting to use when they were discussing the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. He said that he also thought the Planning Board should put something in the newsletter.
Mr. Smith said that Mr. Greg Gentile was looking for direction from the Board. Mr. Seaverns said that they should set up an escrow account in that matter.
Mr. Smith noted that the USA Springs lawyer had decided not to subpoena Ms. Stanton. Mr. Curry said that he thought the Planning Board should have a workshop on USA Springs. He said that they needed to discuss what information was relevant and what was not. Mr. Smith said that he did not think a lot of the old information would be relevant with the new building location. Mr. Seaverns pointed out that the Planning Board had the same concerns as before but that there might be a lower impact due to the new building location. Mr. Booth said that he did not think the Planning Board had enough workshops on USA Springs. Mr. Seaverns said that at the workshop the Planning Board would not accept comment from the public, no decisions would be made and the applicant would be invited. He said that the workshop
would proceed whether or not the applicant chose to attend.
The Planning Board decided to hold a workshop to discuss USA Springs on March 9, 2005.
Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board could discuss the site plan review.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:50pm. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Curry, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth and Ms. Bonser voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
