NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JUNE 8, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD JULY 20, 2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chairman Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Jon Caron Mr. Bill Booth
Mr. Scott Curry Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser (arrived 7:25pm)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:25pm.
The Board reviewed letters from the Police Chief and the Fire Chief regarding the application from Cheryl Robinson to put a day care center on Stage Road. The letters stated that neither Chief had any objections to the proposal. The Board felt the letters were acceptable and the applicant could move forward with the project.
Mr. Curry said that he felt the Board should discuss major and minor subdivisions. Mr. Caron asked what Mr. Curry wanted the Board to tackle. He wondered if the Board needed to make a distinction between major and minor subdivisions. Mr. Curry asked what the Board would do differently between major and minor subdivisions. Mr. Smith said that according to the state definition, 3 lots was a minor subdivision. Mr. Caron said that back lots were 2 lots by their nature. Mr. Curry asked if the town could enact the Interim Growth Management Ordinance again. Mr. Caron said that the town could enact it again if they could prove that they had special circumstances. He discussed the Epsom growth ordinance and said that it was based on the capacity of the school. Ms. Bonser said that Nottingham had a
looming crisis regarding their elderly population. She said that Nottingham needed to find a way to accommodate elderly housing and day care. Mr. Caron said that a 2 lot subdivision could be any size but often one of the lots was big and one was small. He said that the Planning Board could be more stringent on the small lot and less stringent on the large lot. He said that the same thing could happen in a 3 lot subdivision. He wondered about reasons for having different standards. Mr. Curry said that it was not fair to make a small subdivider pay for a cistern. Ms. Bonser said that having more requirements meant a person could not just take off a hunk of their land occasionally in order to sell to pay their taxes or to give to a family member. Mr. Curry said that it was not in the interests of the town to make a person pay for a site survey if they wanted to give land to their children. Mr. Caron said that currently the town
restricted people to having one dwelling per lot. Ms. Bonser said that was a problem for people who wanted to create inlaw dwellings. Mr. Smith asked if the Planning Board wanted to create a definition for homesteading. Ms. Bonser asked whether there were homesteading RSA's in New Hampshire. Mr. Caron said no. Mr. Curry asked if the Planning Board should restrict how often a person could subdivide land. Mr. Caron said that timing was critical. He said that Durham had a restriction saying people could only subdivide land every 7 years. Mr. Curry said that he thought 7 years was too long. Ms. Bonser agreed. Mr. Caron said that he thought people should be able to do minor subdivisions more often than that because minor subdivisions did not need infrastructure. Ms. Bonser asked why the Planning Board required lots to have 200 feet of road frontage. Mr. Caron said that he thought that number should be reduced.
The Board members had a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of cluster subdivisions versus homesteading. The Board also discussed emergency vehicles in cul de sacs. Mr. Smith noted that Fire Department hoses could reach 2000 feet. Ms. Bonser said that cul de sacs were less disruptive to wetlands. Mr. Caron said that he had questions about the turning radius. He said that he thought cul de sacs were too long. Mr. Curry said that he thought the Planning Board could lower the requirements for an impact statement when people were proposing minor subdivisions. Ms. Bonser said that minor subdivisions would not have a road. Mr. Curry said that he thought developers should bring the Planning Board 4 sets of plats for a minor subdivision and 10 or 12 sets for a major subdivision. Mr. Smith suggested 7 sets because that way each member of the Planning Board would have their own. Mr. Curry said that for a major
subdivision there should be enough sets of plats for all members of the Planning Board as well as sets for the Police Department, the Fire Department, the school, the road agent and anyone else who needed one. He said that he did not think that would be necessary for minor subdivisions. Ms. Bonser said that she did not think the Planning Board needed input from the Police Department until after they had accepted the plan. Mr. Caron said that for their design review the Planning Board needed large copies of the plan. He said that before the plan was accepted the Planning Board could see small copies of the plan. Ms. Bonser asked if other Planning Board members thought the Board needed to require people to get full surveys done of their property. Mr. Caron said that he thought people should get full surveys done for subdivision proposals but he did not necessarily think the Board needed full surveys of both lots to approve lot line adjustments.
Mr. Seaverns arrived at 8:20pm and spoke about what had happened with the Gatchell application at the Northwood Planning Board meeting. He said that the application had been approved by the Northwood Board with conditions.
Ms. Bonser asked about the different types of surveys. Mr. Curry said that topography should not be required on the plan for a minor subdivision. Mr. Caron discussed the different types of surveys and explained that they had different standards of accuracy. Mr. Seaverns said that the appropriate uplands needed to be shown on the plan. He said that things needed to be shown on the plan which would prove that the lot was buildable. He said that the Planning Board needed to look at what characteristics proved the lot was buildable and they only needed to require that the topography proving the lot was buildable be shown on the plan. He said that he thought the perimeter survey was very important. Mr. Caron agreed. Mr. Curry asked if the Planning Board needed to see contours on the plan for a minor
subdivision. Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board needed to see enough to prove the lot was buildable. He said that the applicant needed to prove they would have lots with a buildable area of 200x200 square feet or 60,000 contiguous square feet. Mr. Caron said that he thought the square of buildable area should be smaller. He suggested 150x150 square feet but he said that all buildings would still need to fit in the setbacks. Mr. Garnett said that there should be discussion of what could and what could not go in the setbacks. Mr. Caron said that the Planning Board needed to look at what was reasonable. Mr. Seaverns said that there could not be any man made structures in the setbacks at all. Mr. Curry looked at the checklist and said that in his opinion all the things described in B13 were not necessary. Mr. Smith said that all of those things did not always apply in the larger lots anyway. He said that those things
usually only applied in the buildable area. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought it was important for the Planning Board to know the drainage paths. Mr. Smith said that some things should be shown for entire lots. He said that if there was a cemetery on the property it should be shown on the plan even if it was not in the buildable area. He asked if cemeteries would show up on deeds. Mr. Caron said that cemeteries would not necessarily show up on deeds. Mr. Smith said that applicants should do research to check and see if there were cemeteries on the property. He said that water courses might be important as well. Mr. Curry went back to the checklist and said that he thought Section C and Section E should have similar requirements as cluster subdivisions. He said that he did not think Section F should be applicable. Mr. Garnett talked about some history as to why the ordinances had been set up as they were. Mr. Smith
suggested that the Planning Board eliminate the part of the buildable area definition stating that 200x200 square feet was allowed and change the definition to make buildable area 40,000 contiguous square feet. Mr. Seaverns asked about 60,000 contiguous square feet. Mr. Smith asked if that would create larger lots. Mr. Caron said no. Mr. Seaverns said that the contiguous area could not include setbacks. Mr. Caron noted that the Planning Board had been accepting applications with 60,000 contiguous square feet of buildable area that included setbacks.
Mr. Caron made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
