NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
May 21, 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, Ms. Sue Mooney, Mr. Scott Canney,
Mr. Skip Seaverns, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member,
Members Absent: Bob Davidson, Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:08pm. Ms. Chauvey was seated for Mr. Davidson.
Ms. Chauvey asked to speak about a few items out of order from the agenda. The Board agreed.
Remapping Fee
Ms. Chauvey explained that currently the charge for remapping is $35. She believes, after researching this issue, that the $35 doesn’t begin to cover the actual costs (2007 remapping cost was about $1,800). She explained the research done by Mrs. Seaverns and herself and gave examples (average cost of $10-$33 per lot). She also noted that company that does the work charges an hourly rate and these maps are only redone because of actions taken during the Planning Board procedures, no other town office’s actions trigger the need for the maps to be redone.
The suggested fees for minor subdivisions (fewer than 3 lots) and lot line adjustments to charge a flat fee of $50 and on major subdivisions would be charged the $50 plus $10-$15 per lot. Ms. Chauvey preferred the $15 per lot rather than the $10, as it would still be closer to the actual costs. She again noted that the actual costs are not being covered, now, citing last year there was $385.00 collected from applicants for remapping fees but the actual costs were about $1,800. Ms. Mooney suggested not having the fee be lower than $50. The Board agreed.
Mr. Seaverns suggested alternate prices/wording and the need and history of asking for these maps to be digitized. He also had concerns for the actual costs of lot line adjustments. The Board noted that it would be difficult to figure out how to charge for all the varied situations, but Ms. Chauvey noted that actual costs need to be covered better than it is now. She also noted that money goes into the general fund, but she is starting a budget tracking process. She noted she will be tracking those figures this year. She noted the Planning Board should be self supporting but it has been difficult to track. They briefly discussed the budget process. They also noted that voluntary merge(s) of lots would not be charged to the applicant, in order to encourage those mergers.
Chair Smith noted that the $15 per lot would be a good place to start and this could be revisited again in about one year and to make adjustments then, if needed. Mr. Netishen wanted to confirm that the Planning Board costs are covered by the fees that are charged, in general. Ms. Chauvey noted that we would be on the abutters fees and the public notice fees, and this remapping fees, if the approved by the BOS in June. She added that the application fees are very low in comparison to surrounding towns and do not cover the Boards actual costs.
The Board discussed other ideas or ways to cover the charge but could not come up with a simpler way to do it. Ms. Chauvey stated that she didn’t think the taxpayers should pay (remapping costs) for the developer to do a subdivisions.
Mr. Seaverns noted that the Planning Board charging a remapping fee is relatively new. He again discussed having the maps digitized, but noted the high costs. Ms. Mooney noted that the costs would be over $70,000. He wanted to figure out how best to charge and charging the correct amount to cover costs without overcharging. The Board agreed that it was best to take the average cost.
MOTION by Mr. Smith to raise the remapping fee from $35 to $50 for 3 lots and under, and lot line adjustments, for over 3 lots it is $50 plus $15 per lot over the 3 lots.
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
The Board discussed how it would be written on the fee schedule. Mr. Seaverns suggested changing it to a flat $15 per lot. Ms. Chauvey noted that on the smaller subdivisions it would not cover the costs. She proposed that a $50 flat fee even for the small subdivisions. She noted it was similar to the costs of public notice fees; sometimes it the town will have two applications for one ad, other times it won’t. Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Netishen wanted to keep it simple for the public. The Board discussed alternate wording. Chair Smith wanted to match the language of minor and major subdivisions that already exists in the application process.
VOTE 5-Aye. 1- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Seaverns stated he would have like to know the average cost per lot from the company that does the remapping. The Board will review this fee again and all the fees yearly. Later in the meeting, the Board agreed to review the remapping fees once the costs for this year are in and the new maps that are being worked on are returned.
June 4th scheduled meeting
Ms. Chauvey noted the email about the School Board meeting on the same night as this Boards meeting. She noted she will be attending the School Board meeting on the study done for the School Facilities. She noted that she is researching impact fees and it was the reason she would like to go to hear the results of this study. Mr. Seaverns agreed that impact fees were important but only if the school would use them (those monies). He noted that the need for new space to the school must be noted in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and then the Planning Board can move forward with impact fees.
Chair Smith read from the CIP stating that the need for 4 new classrooms in 2013. Mr. Netishen noted he will be attending this School Board meeting, and would not be attending the scheduled planning board meeting that night. Ms. Chauvey stated she felt that all the Planning Board members should attend. Mrs. Sears noted there are no cases on the agenda for the Planning Board that night. The members agreed to cancel the Planning Board meeting to attend the School Board meeting instead. Mrs. Sears does not need to attend.
Mr. Netishen explained that he recalls that the need for more classrooms was in the <old> CIP for 2009, but it was moved out to 2013 because they wanted to have this study done.
MOTION by Mr. Seaverns to move the regularly scheduled June 4th meeting to June 11th so the Board can attend the School Board meeting.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The Board reviewed the workshop meeting schedule and decided to go with most Wednesdays that are not already regular meeting nights so that they can work on the many items that need to be addressed before the end of the year ballot deadlines.
MOTION by Mr. Smith to cancel the July 2nd regularly scheduled meeting due to the holiday and to make a workshop meeting for July 9th
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Seaverns suggested canceling the meeting on the 4th instead of moving it. Chair Smith withdrew his motion to move the June 4th meeting.
Point of Order: Chair Smith did not make that original motion, but the Boards intent was clear and unanimous.
MOTION by Mr. Smith to cancel the regularly scheduled June 4th meeting so the Board can attend the School Board meeting.
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The Board continued to review the dates and all the items that were on it’s “to do” list for the year, including the conservation overlay district. Mrs. Sears noted that the last workshop meeting will probably be on Nov. 12th, due to conflicts and holidays, plus the Local Government Training in the fall. Mr. Netishen stressed the importance of all the members needed to do their homework and reading before each meeting. The members agreed. Mrs. Sears agreed to encourage the Board as well. She will send the Board a revised “proposed workshop dates”.
Mrs. Sears confirmed with the Board that it was ok to submit, again, an article to the town newsletter looking for alternate members. The Board agreed.
Deerfield Road Cistern
Mrs. Sears asked for direction on this outstanding business. Ms. Chauvey, Chair Smith and Mr. Seaverns gave the Board a brief history of the issue of this case and cisterns in general. Mr. Netishen noted that the developer is currently not building in this subdivision at this. Ms. Chauvey noted that there is no easement for the cistern at this point either. Chair Smith suggested writing a letter to the Board of Selectmen (BOS).
Mr. Netishen asked that if it does go to the BOS to be sure to forward all the information about the issue. Mr. Canney didn’t believe it was an issue for the Planning Board. Mr. Seaverns noted it was a planning department issue. It was decided that Mrs. Sears will continue to gather information and present it to the Board, at a late date, with suggestions of where to go with it at that point.
Point of Order: Ms. Chauvey excused herself, 8:35pm, after a brief comment on the minutes.
Review of Minutes
May 7, 2008
The following changes were made by the Board:
Line 13 & 14: Move Mrs. Sears from the Members Present to Others Present
Line 38: change there to their
Line 43: add: ‘s to lot
Line 80: change He to Mr. Ladd
Line 82: change that to a and change it is to the variances on the present application are
Line 87: insert it for after extend
Line 106: change ask to asked
Line 107: add e to rational
Line 109: add , after Board
Line 110: add ZBA before minutes
Line 113: change but to put
Line 117: add day after 30
Line 118: change has to have
Line 121: delete other
Line 148: CORRECTED VOTE SHOULD READ: VOTE 4-Aye 1-Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED Mr. Netishen noted that he had abstained from the Vote
Line 161: add s to Sear
Line 163: delete the s on Brooks and Nickolas should be Nicholas
Line 169: change they to the applicant’s request to send the RCCD engineer out for inspection.
Line 171: add construction after road
Line 174: correct spelling of Ordinance
Line 188: change lead to led
Line 209: add planning board before office and change said to recommended
Line 233: add - to re notification and change and to as and add is after it
Line 239: change to ‘s are after intentions
Line 243: change that to the
Line 244: change would be to were
Line 258: add Beauchamp after Michelle and change she left to the Town’s contract expired.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to approve the May 7, 2008 minutes, as amended
SECOND by Mr. Seaverns
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
ZBA case (#07-08R) –update
Chair Smith updated the Board with the results of the letter the Planning Board sent to the Board of Selectmen (BOS). He explained that the BOS agreed to appeal the decision of the ZBA case (#07-08R) and in turn wrote a letter to the ZBA to request a rehearing of the case. Mr. Netishen explained a brief history of the case, and that the BOS sought outside counsel for advice. He also noted the tight time line to properly evaluate the files. Chair Smith noted he has also reviewed the files and has questions. Mrs. Sears noted that the ZBA’s next meeting is on June 3rd. The Board discussed how the 30 day appeal process has a “short window” for making the appeal. They agreed to call a special meeting to discuss a matter if needed; any member can call the Chair or Mrs. Sears to set that up. Mr.
Seaverns noted that in this case that would have only saved only one day. Mrs. Sears had questions about the Planning Board procedures.
The Board noted that they only had the minutes to go. Mr. Seaverns also noted that this Board and the BOS can do the best job within the time that was allowed. He noted if the ZBA believes that what they did is the right thing, and then this Board will just deal with that. They again discussed the legal time lines of the appeal process.
Water ordinance update
The Board acknowledged the receipt of responses past out at the last meeting from Office of Energy and Planning, Local Government Center and Stratford Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Netishen noted that their comments were not very helpful.
Bylaws
Mrs. Sears had members that were present sign the final copy of the Bylaws. She will distribute copies for the Board once all the signatures are completed.
Next Meeting
The Board agreed to review the Subdivision Regulations before the next meeting on May 28th.
MOTION by Chair Smith to adjourn the meeting at 9:28pm
SECOND by Mr. Netishen
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.
| 
