NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD JANUARY 4, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. David Smith, Chair Mr. Jon Caron
Mr. Bill Booth
Mr. Scott Curry
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Sandra Jones (Arrived 7:20pm)
Ms. Mary Bonser (Arrived 7:25pm)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Conservation Commission (Susan Mooney, Celia Aikman, and Diane Kirkwood)
David Wright, Economic Development Director
Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
PRESENTATION FROM CONSERVATION COMMISSION:
The Conservation Commission gave a presentation to the Planning Board. They discussed their desire to bring a proposal to the town about a voluntary program to help encourage land preservation. They said that the Board of Selectmen had asked to see the language they were going to use before giving their blessing. They said that they were looking at the language which was used by other towns and they would have language available by the end of the month. Mr. Smith asked if the land that the Conservation Commission was looking at would be protected by easements. Ms. Mooney said that it could be. She said that the Conservation Commission wanted to make this a completely voluntary and casual program. Ms. Aikman said that she wanted to see if the town would support this. She said that most of what
the Conservation Commission was trying to accomplish was educational. Ms. Mooney said that the map would look like a mosaic. She said that some people would preserve land and some would develop it. She said that the Conservation Commission wanted to encourage large parcels of land to stay undeveloped. Mr. Smith asked if landowners would be notified that they owned land in the area the Conservation Commission was looking to protect. Ms. Mooney said that the landowners would not necessarily be notified. She said that it had been suggested that the Conservation Commission notify large landowners. She said that they wanted people to be comfortable. She said that the Conservation Commission was still discussing this. Ms. Aikman said that the Conservation Commission could possibly prioritize the areas they were focusing on and notify people in the highest priority areas. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board was discussing open
space preservation and bringing back cluster subdivisions. He asked whether the Conservation Commission wanted to see some areas have more open space. Ms. Mooney said that the Conservation Commission needed to see what the town wanted. She said that time was critical and she said that they needed an area which would allow wildlife to move from one place to another. Mr. Curry asked if the Conservation Commission wanted to expand the aquifers. Ms. Mooney said that the Conservation Commission was interested in conserving an area that had some rare plants. Mr. Curry asked if the Conservation Commission could do an overlay for the map of areas they were looking at. Ms. Copeland said yes. Mr. Curry asked if it would be possible to give people incentives not to develop land. Ms. Aikman suggested that they prioritize the suggested areas and give people economic incentives not to develop the high priority areas and encourage them to
develop the lower priority areas. Mr. Gylfphe asked if the Conservation Commission had talked to the largest landowner in town. He said that they should. He said that person had the ability to sway other landowners towards or away from the plan. Mr. Booth said that he felt this was a worthy issue to pursue. He said that they wanted people to hear the message that the Conservation Commission was trying to bring to the public. Ms. Bonser said that the public needed to know this was a voluntary program. She said that the public needed to understand that this was not a land seizure program and it was simply a vision of the Conservation Commission for the future of the town. Ms. Kirkwood noted that a wonderful example of conservation in New Hampshire was Moose Mountain in Middleton. Ms. Aikman said that the Conservation Commission needed to make landowners comfortable with their vision. Mr. Curry said that this could be a tool
that the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board could use to work together. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board could help the Conservation Commission to facilitate and implement their vision. Ms. Copeland suggested that the Conservation Commission should talk to Laurel Cox. She said that Ms. Cox was the Land Protection Administrator in Lee and she had tremendous success with a Route 125 corridor study. She said that the town of Lee wanted to use the cattle crossings under Route 125 for cattle and pedestrians. Mr. Curry said that he would like to see areas on the map prioritized by their conservation values. Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board had talked about rezoning the land and he said that getting the landowners involved would be a big help.
PUBLIC HEARING-TRUE SUBDIVISION:
The Chair called the public hearing to order at 7:35pm.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Peter Landry, Mr. Winthrop True
Mr. Landry said that at the previous meeting the applicant and the Board had left off during a discussion of fire protection. He said that the Planning Board had recommended he talk to the Fire Department. He said that according to the Fire Department the easiest thing for the town would be for the applicant to put in a dry hydrant on the land of his neighbor, Mr. Evans. Mr. True said that he had spoken with Mr. Evans and Mr. Evans had said that he had already given permission to the town for a dry hydrant to be put on his property. Mr. Smith said that it was his understanding that during a fire the Fire Department would use any available water source to fight it. Mr. Smith read out loud both letters the Planning Board had received from the Fire Department regarding this case. Mr. Gylfphe explained to the
Board and to the applicant what a dry hydrant was and what it looked like. Mr. Landry said that according to some information he had found on the internet he would estimate the cost of a dry hydrant to be about $2,000. Mr. Smith said that the letters from the Fire Department were not really clear in what they would want done. He said that the cost of the dry hydrant might end up being similar to the cost of a sprinkler system. Mr. True asked whether the Planning Board was familiar with dry hydrants. Mr. Smith said that he had been on the Board for 6 years and the Fire Department had not recommended a dry hydrant before. Mr. Gylfphe said that the Planning Board had seen plans with a dry hydrant right before Mr. Smith had come onto the Board. Mr. Landry asked where the common ground and compromise were on this issue. Mr. Curry said that he did not like the regulations but they stated that small subdivisions needed to put in cisterns,
sprinklers or some other fire protection. Mr. Landry noted that there was an adequate water supply in Mr. Evans pond to fight fires that might happen in Mr. True's proposed subdivision. Mr. Gylfphe noted that it was cheaper to develop land in Nottingham than in other places because there were no impact fees. Ms. Bonser said that it seemed like the dry hydrant option was the most economical. Mr. True asked what the town would do to help him since they would be the ones using the dry hydrant for everyone in the area. Ms. Copeland noted that the applicant could not just promise to have sprinklers put in. She said that there would be a note on the plan and the plan would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. She said that there would be no certificate of occupancy issued for a house built on the property if a sprinkler system were not installed. Mr. Smith said that currently sprinklers were only required in newly subdivided lots.
Mr. True asked if the builder could have the option to do the dry hydrant. He asked if the Planning Board could put the choice on the plan. Ms. Bonser said that she did not see why the note on the plan could not include the word "OR." Ms. Copeland pointed out that the Planning Board did not allow conditional approval. She said that she thought the dry hydrant was the best idea in this case because she pointed out that if the Board required buildings on the new lot to have sprinklers than the existing home on the property would not have fire protection. Mr. True said that he would like to give the builder a choice. Ms. Bonser said that might get too complicated. Mr. Gylfphe said that sprinklers would lower homeowners insurance. Mr. Smith said that a dry hydrant might be an off site improvement. Ms. Copeland said that a dry hydrant seemed like it would be a reasonable remedy at a minimal cost. She said that
she was looking at safety. Mr. True said that he would be willing to do the dry hydrant. Ms. Bonser noted that the dry hydrant would need to be installed to meet the state fire regulations. Mr. Smith said that Mr. True might have some success soliciting monetary help from his neighbors in order to pay the cost of the dry hydrant because his neighbors would benefit from the installation of the dry hydrant. Ms. Copeland presented her report about the True application. Mr. Landry noted that the land parcel they were discussing was made up of two separate deeds. Ms. Copeland said that the applicant did have state subdivision approval. Mr. Landry said that he had added the state subdivision approval numbers to the plan. Ms. Jones said that the Planning Board would need a written statement from Mr. Evans giving his permission for the dry hydrant to be put on his land. She said that document would need to be recorded at the
Registry of Deeds so that if Mr. Evans moved or changed his mind the applicant would be protected. Mr. Landry asked if Ms. Jones was talking about a deeded easement. Mr. Smith said that it would be the responsibility of the town to maintain a dry hydrant. He said that there would need to be an easement for the town to get access to the dry hydrant in order to maintain it. Ms. Jones said that a dry hydrant would add value to both properties involved. Mr. Landry said that they needed to protect the town and both of the property owners effected by this decision. He said that the recommendation by the Fire Department left questions. He said that they needed to pin down exactly what was being asked because installing a dry hydrant could get complicated. Mr. Smith said that he thought requiring sprinklers was the best option. He said that he did not feel comfortable with putting a note on the plan about the installation of a dry
hydrant because the dry hydrant would not be on the True property. Ms. Bonser said that there would need to be a good easement. Mr. Smith said that the Fire Department would take water if they needed it from wherever it was. Mr. True said that there needed to be a more equitable way to spread the fire protection costs. He noted that anyone who built within so many feet of his water supply would get to use it without paying for it. Mr. Wright said that the town should preserve the dry hydrant option with the deeded easement or they should require sprinklers. Mr. Curry agreed that the system of cost distribution should be more fair.
Mr. Curry made a motion to put a note on the plan stating that a dry hydrant must be installed on Mr. Evan's property. There was no second to the motion.
Mr. True said that brought the conversation back to sprinklers. He agreed to put a note on the plan requiring that sprinklers be installed when buildings were built on the property. Mr. Landry said that he had a letter requesting a waiver from the cistern requirement. Mr. Smith read the letter out loud.
Ms. Jones made a motion to accept the waiver request. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. True asked if he decided to put in a dry hydrant whether the Planning Board could turn down his request to change the note on the plan. Mr. Smith said that he did not see why the Planning Board would turn down such a request. Ms. Jones recommended that before Mr. True spent dime one on such a project he should come back to the Planning Board. She said that it would probably be a very different Planning Board by the summer and they could not make any guarantees of what would or would not be approved.
Mr. Curry made a motion to accept and approve the True 2 lot subdivision plan. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
WORKSHOP SESSION:
The Chair called the workshop session to order at 9:00pm.
Ms. Copeland said that the Planning Board needed to have a discussion about the Growth Management Ordinance. She asked the Board to review the purpose of this ordinance. She asked if the Board had defined elderly person or elderly housing. Mr. Gylfphe said that the federal guidelines defined an elderly person as 55 or older. He said that something he was interested in looking at was whether the Planning Board could put a size limit on rebuilt houses on the lake. He said that people bought property on the lake with small houses on it and tore them down and rebuilt huge houses in their place. Ms. Copeland said that other communities were working on language to address that situation. Mr. Curry said that he was looking for numbers on the growth of the town and he wanted to know what the town needed. He said that the town should look more closely at impact fees and he said that the Capital Improvement Committee should add some discussion of that to their purpose. Ms. Bonser
said that on January 19, 2006 at 7:00pm the Capital Improvement Committee would make their recommendations. Mr. Curry said that it would be nice for the Planning Board to have numbers for reference. Ms. Bonser said that Nottingham was not projected to be the fastest growing community in the area anymore. Ms. Copeland discussed definitions of common terms used in planning ordinances. She noted that water and sewer systems were not provided in Nottingham. Ms. Jones said that without those services Nottingham should not allow affordable housing. She said that elderly housing was not a bad idea. She said that was the direction in which the population was going. Ms. Copeland asked if elderly housing should be lower priced housing or if it should follow market prices. Mr. Curry asked if it would be possible to give tax breaks to elderly people in order to keep them in town. He said that the Board should probably be discussing
the length of the ordinance. Ms. Copeland said that they needed to review their ordinance annually and they needed to discuss the methodology they would use in implementing their ordinance. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board could possibly tie their ordinance to the growth numbers. Mr. Smith said that it could take a year to put together a methodology. Ms. Copeland agreed.
Ms. Copeland asked the Planning Board members to look at the findings and definitions in the sample Impact Fee Ordinance. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board wanted to change the Zoning Ordinance. He said that they were looking at changing the zones and defining major and minor subdivisions. Mr. Smith said that they also wanted to look at their open space regulations. Ms. Copeland said that the Planning Board needed to respond to the Interim Growth Management Ordinance. She said that they also needed to see what they could do to help implement the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Smith asked if the Planning Board thought they should include sprinklers in their ordinance. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board needed to deal with the Sign Ordinance as well. She said that there were people on
Route 4 who were waiting for the Planning Board to make some decisions on that.
The Board was asked if they would like to hear a presentation on open space. The Board agreed. Mr. Smith stated that the presentation would be scheduled for December 21, 2005 at 7:00pm.
The Planning Board Secretary noted that the Planning Board needed to post their 2006 schedule. She showed them the draft version. Mr. Curry confirmed that the public hearing meetings were scheduled for the first and third Wednesdays of each month.
Ms. Jones made a motion that the Planning Board accept the 2006 Planning Board hearing schedule as written. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30pm. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
