NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
May 7, 2008
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED & AMMENDED
Type of Meeting: Regularly Scheduled
Method of Notification: Posted at the Nottingham Municipal Building & Nottingham Post Office
Meeting Location: Nottingham Municipal Building
Members Present: Mr. Dave Smith; Chair, Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair, Ms. Sue Mooney, Mr. Scott Canney, Mr. Skip Seaverns, Bob Davidson, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative
Others present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member, Richard Ladd, Paul Longueil, Atty. Chris Boldt
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:03pm.
Review of Minutes
April 16, 2008
The following changes were made by the Board:
Line 45: change vote to the motion
Line 101: delete the cap S and add an s on Surveyor
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to approve the April 16, 2008 minutes, as amended
SECOND by Mr. Seaverns
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Chair Smith read the case on the agenda, and opened the discussion/update:
Public Meeting Continuance – Subdivision Application (acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 3-lot subdivision) – Paul & Leslie Longueil Revocable Trust of 1996, Paul & Leslie Longueil, Trustees – Cooper Hill Road – Map 16 Lot 15A – Case #P07-15-SUB.
Atty. Boldt noted that their were no legal notices sent out for this meeting so that there discussion was limited but he could give the Board an update. He told the Board that they had received the variance from the curb cut requirements at the April 22nd ZBA meeting. He briefly showed the current plans to the Board with the various lots and accesses. Chair Smith asked about the changes from the first plan. Atty. Boldt noted a brief history of the case noting the plans have not changed much; the lot’s shapes and sizes, setbacks were the same as originally submitted but just the access to the lots had changed.
The Board noted the need to re-notify the abutters. Atty. Boldt agreed to the June 18th meeting. It was agreed that the applicant will provide a new set of plans, with notes of changes made and received by the office by June 2nd. At the June 18th meeting the Board will discuss the completeness review issues addressed in the Dec. 4, 2007 letter from Strafford Regional Planning Commission.
There was a brief discussion on how emergency access and mutual aid is handled, but these issues will be addressed at the June meeting. Mrs. Sears noted there is an updated abutters list on file and fees to re-notify the abutters have been paid.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess Subdivision Application (acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 3-lot subdivision) – Paul & Leslie Longueil Revocable Trust of 1996, Paul & Leslie Longueil, Trustees – Cooper Hill Road – Map 16 Lot 15A – Case #P07-15-SUB to the June 18, 2008 meeting.
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 6-Aye. 1- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Chair Smith opened the next two agenda items together.
Discussion/Update -Continuance – Subdivision Application (compliance and final approval of a 6-lot subdivision) – RSL Layout & Design for Little River Realty Trust, Lucille Howard, Trustee – 375 Stage Road – Map 17 Lot 25 – Case #P07-08-SUB.
Discussion/Update -Continuance – Subdivision Application (compliance and final approval of a 23-lot subdivision) – RSL Layout & Design for Leonard Giles Revocable Trust of 2000 – Gebig Road – Map 17 Lot 31 – Case #P07-09-SUB.
Chair Smith read the letter dated May 7, 2008 from RSL Layout & Design requesting that the Board table both applications before them. They note that they are in the process of applying to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for variances to allow both developments to redesign their respective subdivisions as “Conservation Subdivisions” that the Board was trying to get on the March 2008 warrant. Mr. Ladd added that if the ZBA approves these variances to build the Conservation Subdivision then he would then come back to the Board and withdraw this application and apply for a new application. If the variances on the present application are denied they would then continue with this application then. They also discussed the need to re- notify the abutters before that meeting, if this application proceeds.
The Board and Mr. Ladd discussed that they were not allowed to table an application but they could extend it for 90 days.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess Subdivision Application (compliance and final approval of a 6-lot subdivision) – RSL Layout & Design for Little River Realty Trust, Lucille Howard, Trustee – 375 Stage Road – Map 17 Lot 25 – Case #P07-08-SUB and the Subdivision Application (compliance and final approval of a 23-lot subdivision) – RSL Layout & Design for Leonard Giles Revocable Trust of 2000 – Gebig Road – Map 17 Lot 31 – Case #P07-09-SUB to the August 20, 2008 meeting, including the need to re-notify.
SECOND by Mr. Davidson
VOTE 6-Aye. 1- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Netishen had concerns of how long this case has been going on. Mr. Seaverns noted that we were recessing it at the request of the applicant.
ZBA case #07-08R
Mr. Seaverns asked the Board to ask the BOS to rescind the judgment of the ZBA on the Longueil case or provide rationale as to how they (ZBA) came to their conclusions. He also would like a definition of “the Spirit of the Ordinance.” Mr. Seaverns believes that the Zoning Board, has taken on the role of the Planning Board, in this decision. He stated that there was a lot of discussion, in the ZBA minutes, about where the driveways were going. He also noted that it was presented again tonight by Atty. Boldt; that the driveways are where the ZBA wanted them. Mr. Seaverns asked the Board, if the curb cuts are not in the frontage, where in the ordinances does it say to put them. He noted there is an ordinance that says it has to be off a Class V road.
Chair Smith asked if it was the Planning Board’s place to question Zoning Board’s decisions, even before we hear the case. Mr. Seaverns noted the ZBA’s 30 day appeal process and that two weeks have already passed. He again noted that the implication, in the <ZBA> minutes, that those driveways have been placed in certain positions, which is not the Zoning Board’s job. He stated that that process has to end. He went on to discuss what he believes the implications of this decision could be including land locked areas that could now be developed, if this is upheld. He believes that this is an important issue for the Board of Selectmen.
Discussion was on what the letter should ask; should it request the Board of Selectmen appeal the ZBA decision or ask the ZBA how they came to their decision. Chair Smith asked about the effects of an appeal on the case, and potential prejudice for the application before them. Mr. Seaverns believes there would be no prejudice associated with this. He questions how the Planning Board is going to handle the ZBA decision that was made. Mr. Gylfphe raised concerns about RSA 674:41 and RSA 674:44, and believes that the BOS can appeal the case based on those. Mr. Netishen asked the Board to go directly to the ZBA and questioned why go through the BOS. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Planning Board can not appeal the ZBA case, it is up to the BOS.
Ms. Chauvey stated that those members who had concerns about this case should have attended the Zoning Board meetings. Mr. Seaverns noted he has done that in the past but had concerns about if he does then he would have to recuse himself from the Planning Board meeting and he didn’t think that was a wise way to do business. Mr. Seaverns noted that he had read the minutes. Chair Smith noted that he felt the minutes helped him understand how they came to a decision on things. There was a general discussion about private roads.
MOTION by Mr. Seaverns to appeal in a letter to the Board of Selectmen to appeal the decision of the Nottingham Zoning Board Case # 07-08R, based on the ZBA’s definition of “the Spirit of the Ordinance” issue and RSA 674:41 & 674:44.
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 4-Aye. 1- Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mrs. Sears will forward the letter to the Board members and the Board will give their input as soon as they receive it in order to meet the tight deadline for the Monday Board of Selectmen’s meeting agenda. Mr. Davidson explained that he voted to abstain because he would like to review this letter before it is sent. Mr. Netishen asked if there was a policy for this Board in regards to how to appeal a decision of the ZBA. Discussion was on the RSAs that cover the appeal process and the scheduling of the meetings. It was concluded that if a member feels there should be a workshop meeting between scheduled meetings they should contact the Chair or Mrs. Sears and try to set one up.
Brooks crossing-sending SRPC Engineer
Mrs. Sears stated that she needed clarification on how and when to send the RCCD engineer to a project for inspection(s). There is a letter from Beals Associates dated April 18, 2008 requesting that the engineer be sent for road inspections in Brook Crossing (Sophia and Nicholas). Chair Smith read the letter. The Board agreed to send the engineer and agreed that Mrs. Sears could send the engineer in the future in similar situations but should confirm with Ms. Chauvey the account balance so that all costs are covered. The applicant pays for these costs via the escrow accounts and the like. The RCCD will report back to the Board once inspections are complete.
The Board agreed not to hold up the process, but the applicant’s request to send the RCCD engineer out for inspection should go through the Planning Board office but doesn’t need to come before the Boards at a meeting. Discussion was on the process of the road construction and its inspections. Mrs. Sears will try to write down, rough draft of the process for the Boards review.
Typographical error in Zoning Ordnances
Mrs. Sears noted that there is an error under the expired permits section, on page 27, Section D. #2. It reads $10 when the Building Inspector says it was changed and should say $25. Chair Smith noted that change can be confirmed in the 2005 warrant articles at town meeting. Once confirmed, Mrs. Sears will change it. Ms. Chauvey noted that the town attorney has advised that we can make typographical corrections as needed without having to go to town meeting for approval.
Bylaws
Mrs. Sears followed up with outstanding issues left from the recent bylaw reviews including: location of non public sessions, when to call a roll call vote and when to re-notify abutters. The Board discussed at previous meeting(s) about how in the minutes it was noted who had voted how at one time and not at the other. That had led to the Board deciding only to call a roll call vote on cases. Ms. Chauvey noted, as a citizen, that she had wanted it know how each member has voted, so that roll call should be for more than just cases, so that when elections come around she can see how each member has voted and see who best matches her opinions on any given topic/case.
MOTION by Mr. Seaverns to roll call every vote. (No second, motion dies.)
Mr. Netishen noted that roll call votes are at the discretion of the Chair.
MOTION by Mr. Seaverns that the Chairman determines which votes become roll calls.
SECOND by Mr. Netishen
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Seaverns to make the last motion, part of the bylaws under Article 10, new Section 5.
SECOND by Mr. Davidson
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mrs. Sears suggested that if the Board would like to add a new section talking about non public sessions it should go in Article IX, new Section 4.
The Board discussed in detail possible situations where this may be needed and where the location could be changed to: later in the discussion the Planning Board office was recommended as the possible change of location.
MOTION by Mr. Seaverns to add Article IX Section 4 to read: non public session shall be held only in accordance with RSA 91-A:3, and shall be moved to and conducted in a physically different location.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
Mr. Seaverns noted the location change was needed so that members would handle themselves in a non public manner. They touched on minutes for non public sessions. Mr. Netishen stated that he didn’t feel like the change of location is needed when no one else is here, and would be time consuming. Mr. Davidson agreed with Mr. Netishen. Ms. Mooney suggested amending the motion to say changing the location when members of the public are present.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to add Article IX Section 4 to read: non public session shall be held only in accordance with RSA 91-A:3, and shall be moved to and conducted in a physically different location, when members of the public are present.
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 5-Aye. 2- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Later in the meeting, Mr. Netishen noted that Article IX Section 3 already states “at the request of any Planning Board member, the Chairperson shall call for a recorded roll call vote on any issue.”
The Board felt that the re-notification issue doesn’t need to be in the bylaws as it is covered in the RSA and the Planning Board process. Mr. Gylfphe noted the subdivision regulations, procedures and review already covers recent issues. Chair Smith noted it is difficult to know everything covered in every regulation. Ms. Chauvey added that procedures have changed also. Mrs. Sears will give the Board new copies of these bylaws.
Ms. Chauvey asked about what the Board’s intentions are now that there is no longer a contract with Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) for completeness reviews. She noted that if the Board would like to continue to have the SRPC continue to do these reviews then the applicant must be notified that they will have to incur these costs now. She noted that they have not had to pay for them in the recent past. Chair Smith noted that he believed it was going to go back to the way it was before the planner and SRPC were doing the reviews at the applicant’s expense. Mr. Gylfphe stated he believed that the Board of Selectmen had voted to have the Building Inspector, Paul Colby do the completeness reviews.
Chair Smith noted that the fees charged should be reviewed again. Ms. Chauvey agreed. The Board agreed that who would review the completeness of an application depended on the scope/size of the project. Mr. Seaverns gave a brief history of how the process has worked in the past. Mr. Seaverns noted the next application that comes in will need to be reviewed and asked who would be making that determination: does the completeness review go to the building inspector or go to SRPC. Mr. Canney noted that a 20-30 subdivision should go to SRPC.
Ms. Chauvey noted that the completeness review check list has been done and is in the new subdivision regulations application. She suggested once adopted by the Board, Mrs. Sears could do the completeness review. She suggested one workshop to get through the subdivision regulations next week. She noted Michelle Beauchamp from SRPC had done this work before the Town’s contract expired. She urged the Board to move along on this issue. Mr. Seaverns gave Mrs. Sears a copy of an older checklist from 2004 for use until the Board finishes the new application. The Board will discuss the Subdivision Regulations at the next workshop.<It was later determined to hold the next workshop on May 28, 2008>
Minutes/Bulletin Board-follow up
Chair Smith asked about the Board’s request to the BOS for a Bulletin Board outside this building. Mrs. Sears noted she had sent the memo but had not received any response. Ms. Chauvey noted it was on the BOS’s next agenda.
Mrs. Sears updated the Board on the Town’s policy on minutes. She read from the memo from Charlie Brown dated April 28th. She noted it was added that: Corrections to minutes can be for typographical errors and the like. Changing of the minutes to alter the content or intent will not be accepted. There is no need for signatures of members on the minutes. Amended/Approved minutes will be labeled as such.
MOTION by Mr. Netishen to adjourn the meeting at 9:35pm
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe.
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa L. Sears
Land Use Clerk
These minutes are subject to approval at a regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting at which time the above minutes are corrected or accepted.
| 
