NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
October 29, 2008
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED & AMMENDED
Type of Meeting: Scheduled Workshop
Method of Notification: Posted at the Nottingham Municipal Building & Nottingham Post Office
Meeting Location: Nottingham Municipal Building
Members Present: Mr. Dave Smith; Chair, Robert “Buzz” Davies: Alternate Member, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member, Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative, Earle Rourke, Alternate Member, Scott Curry, Alternate Member
Members Absent: Mr. Scott Canney, Ms. Sue Mooney, Ms. Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member, Bob Davidson, Gail Mills, Alternate Member
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk
Acting Chair Rourke called the meeting to order at approximately 7:11 pm.
Ms. Chauvey was seated for Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davies was seated for the vacant seat. Also seated for this part of the meeting also were, Acting Chair Rourke and Scott Curry.
Review of Previous Minutes
September 24, 2008
Line 11 Earl Rouke should be Earle Rourke (and throughout the rest of the document)
Line 15 Add Mr. Davies to Others Present
Line 101 Change agreed to concurred and as to was
Line 138 Davis to Davies
Line 213 insert after applicant: and the public
Line 217 change this meeting to under protest
MOTION by Mr. Curry to approve the minutes of September 24, 2008 as amended
SECOND by Mr. Davies
VOTE 3-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Ms. Chauvey abstained since she was not present at the September 24, 2008 meeting.
Acting Chair Rourke opened and read the case for the evening:
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.
Chair Rourke read the letter from Mr. Longueil, dated Oct 4, 2007 (typo on the letter should read: 2008) stating that he is withdrawing his case without prejudice.
MOTION by Mr. Curry to accept the letter of withdrawal from this Longueil case.
SECOND by Mr. Davies
Mr. Curry noted the applicant can reapply at any time.
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Curry to disband the alternate board that was seated only for this Longueil case.
SECOND by Mr. Davies
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Point of Order: Mr. Curry and Mr. Rourke left the meeting.
MOTION by Mr. Davies to take a 10 minute recess.
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 2-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Point of Order: Upon return from the break, Chair Smith, Mr. Gylfphe, and Mr. Netishen were seated back on the board.
Chair Smith called the meeting back to order at 7:30pm. The Board thanked the Alternate Board for their service to the Town.
Mr. Gylfphe gave an update to the Board from the LGC Law Lecture series that he had attended last week. He briefly discussed the Right to Know law in regards to email, and the recording of the meetings on audio tapes, Workforce Housing, Wind Energy regulations, and Trash Burning Building’s regulations.
Meeting Dates and deadlines for 2009 and The 2009 “to do” List
Mrs. Sears gave the Board a list of items that need to be done by the Planning Board. She asked that the Board review and add or delete items and consider what order the Board would like to complete them in. She noted that she will be trying to put the applications on line by the end of the year, as well.
Later in the meeting, the Board determined that they would work on the current 2009 Zoning Ordinances that did not get done last year for this year, in time.
Study costs from Bruce Mayberry-follow-up
Ms. Chauvey gave the Board a copy of the reply from Mr. Mayberry; for the costs and scope of an impact fee study. His letter dated October 29th gives a range, depending on study results of $7,500 to a maximum of $10,000. The Board would like to see Mr. Mayberry’s qualifications and a time table.
Ms. Chauvey noted that she has attended two of his workshops and when she speaks to other town’s that have successful impact fees enacted they all recommend Mr. Mayberry. They discussed how an impact fee is a way for the town to reduce the burden of future capital costs; like an addition to a school. Many towns have enacted them as one of the ways to plan for the growth of their town instead of just letting the growth go unplanned.
After much discussion of whether to spend the money for this now, since they have the money in the budget or to have Ms. Chauvey and some other residents put this forward as a petition warrant article. It was concluded that Ms. Chauvey’s best approach would be to present the petition warrant article, and ask the various Boards to officailly support it. They also noted that although development in town is currently slow. They would like to see this get underway so that it is in place before the next construction boom. Ms. Chauvey noted that her intent was to discuss with Mr. Mayberry, if an impact fee is justified that it only apply to major subdivisions of four or more lots.
Chair Smith asked if the impact fee could come under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Ms. Chauvey noted that CIP was for things like buildings type items, and could not be used to cover the cost of a study.
It was noted that the Planning Board must formally adopt the CIP, when its update is completed.
Continued Discussion on the Conservation Core Focus Area Overlay District (COD)
The Board discussed, in great detail, the answers they received from Ms. Copeland, SRPC. Ms. Chauvey noted that she was not satisfied with the answers given in regards to who determines how much of the applicant’s parcel is in the COD. There was a lengthy discussion, it was noted that the COD map doesn’t have solid landmarks, reference points or coordinates to help determine boundaries of the COD for the surveyor to use. Ms. Copeland had answered that it would be determined by the Conservation Commission, the surveyor and the Planning Board. They also discussed their other question to Ms. Copeland of not having proper wording to allow the Board to negotiate with applicants on unique features, like a farm field, that the Board may want to see undeveloped.
Ms. Chauvey expressed concern for being the first town to have a “Conservation Core Focus Area Overlay District”. She added that had she realized this before last week, she would have been opposed to it and asked for a plain old conservation subdivision instead. She was concerned that this had not been tried or tested. She was under the impression that other towns were using this, but they are not. There was much discussion about this whole concept and how it came about, and who had generated it.
Board members were concerned that so much time had been spent on this concept. They all agreed that conservation was important and did not want to scrap this document but that there were too many details yet to be worked out in time for this year’s ballot. They were not confident they could complete this COD, with the quality and attention to detail that is needed for such a brand new concept. They also questioned if it was going to get used by a developer if the number of lots were not the same as in a conventional subdivision. Due to the change in the number of lots (yield), this document has changed significantly since it was presented to the public last year.
Discussion was on the COD map. Chair Smith, at one point, stated that he had a problem with the map in that a large portion, around Pawtuckaway shore, of this COD, is already built out. Mrs. Sears noted that a similar issue had been raised a few months ago; how many lots this COD could be applied to and now the (rough) lot lines were on the map.
The Board discussed the likelihood of any large developments coming in, in the next 18 months and if there was a need to push to complete this for the 2009 ballot. The Board decided that they would not try to finish this document for the 2009 ballot but would like to see an open space document go through. Mrs. Sears will ask Ms. Copeland if she has the hours to work on that and when can it be ready for this Board to review. The Board noted that they could try to get the open space document completed this year, depending on when it is received from Ms. Copeland, and what it looked like.
Discussion was again on how this document had changed significantly since last year and how they were just told, about a month ago, that there needs to have an open space document to go with this COD. There was discussion on how this is a valid concept but was “not concrete.”
Mrs. Sears noted that in the next 3-5 meetings, the Board would have to finish this COD and its matching Subdivision Regulations (14 pages); Start and complete the Open Space Ordinance and do a final review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance (minor) changes, all for this years ballot and public hearing schedule. The Board discussed how they had got to this point, including Ms. Copeland’s input.
Mrs. Chauvey noted that she was not prepared to move forward with the Conservation Overlay District (COD). Mr. Netishen questioned that even though the goal was to have the COD completed for this coming ballot that it doesn’t have to. Ms. Chauvey noted she believes in Conservation. She also noted that she was not happy with the current form of the COD but was willing to work on improving it.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to continue working on the Conservation Overlay District but don’t have it ready for this year’s public hearing deadline (January 2009).
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Davies abstained explaining that he didn’t think that he has had a big enough part in the making of this COD, since he is new to the Board, to still vote to hold off on completing it for this year. The Board agreed that there was still too much work needed on the COD, in order to complete this in time and still be able to present a well thought out doccument to the public in January. The Board would like to see if Ms. Copeland can present an open space ordinance to the Board and perhaps the Board would be able to complete it in time for this year’s ballot.
The Board reviewed their 2009 “to do” list. The Board agreed to work on the review of the proposed 2009 Zoning Ordinances for the ballot. They discussed when to send these to the attorney for review; before or after the public hearings. They set the priority as:
#1. Zoning Ordinances: update and clean up for 2009 ballot
#2. Open Space: depending on when it is received from Ms. Copeland.
#3. Finish the review of theSubdivision Regulations (including application(s)) started in 2007.
* They will also work on the review of applications and forms, as they arise, and can be fit into the workshop schedule. (Ms. Chauvey noted that she can help with the applications; and to hold off on the subdivision application)
Mrs. Sears noted that when subdivision regulations are reviewed she would like to have the Board consider making separate regulations for Lot Line Adjustments (including the application) and also consider making separate regulations from the Site Plan Review for Major Home Occupation (including the application) reviews, she noted the current process is not working well; for the applicant or the Board.
It was noted that the Workforce Housing issue will have to be worked on, perhaps first thing after the elections. It would depend on the priorities for the new Board, then. Mrs. Sears will give a new “to do” list once these items were completed.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to table the review of the previous minutes and to adjourn at 9:45pm.
SECOND by Mr. Netishen
VOTE 5-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.
| 
