NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
January 5, 2011
PUBLIC SESSION
Approved & Amended
Type of Meeting: Public Hearing
Method of Notification: Posted at the Nottingham Municipal Building & Nottingham Post Office
Meeting Location: Nottingham Municipal Building
PB Members Present: Arthur Stockus, Chair; Gary Anderson, Selectmen’s Rep, Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair; Susan Mooney, Traci Chauvey, Alt. Member
PB Members Absent: Rick Bacon, Secretary; Scott Canney, Cheryl Smith, Alt. Member, Robert “Buzz” Davies, Alternate Member
Others Present: Lisa Sears, Land Use Clerk, Paul Colby, Building Inspector/Code Administrator, Skip Seaverns, Mike Russo, Terry Bonser
Chair Stockus called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 pm. Chair Stockus stated the purpose of the meeting was to hold public hearings for the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance and the proposed, newly reformatted Zoning Ordinance.
He opened the Public Hearing on the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance at 7:05pm.
Proposed Impact Fee Ordinance
Chair Stockus read the notice posted in the Foster’s Daily Democrat and at the Town Offices & Post Office. Ms. Chauvey gave a brief history of the work the Impact Fee Study Steering Committee, how the Town had voted to spend $13,000 in a warrant article in 2009 for this and who has worked on the committee. She discussed how once the subcommittee of the Planning Board was formed they had an RFP posted for hiring a consultant. The Committee chose Bruce Mayberry for his vast experience noting that he was the “expert” when it comes to Impact Fee Ordinances (IFO) throughout New England.
Ms. Chauvey noted the Committee has worked for almost two years to come up with this ordinance and supporting documentation and fee schedule. She noted that they are sending the IFO to the voters in March but <if passed> the Ordinance does not automatically institute the Impact Fees. She explained the IFO process as noted in the RSAs and how the IFO is just the first step, it authorizes the Planning Board to enact Impact Fees and the second step is the Fee Schedule which would require its own public hearings. She noted there are methodologies completed for the School and Fire Department, but must be reviewed by the Planning Board and acted upon. Ms. Chauvey reviewed some of the areas in which Impact Fees could be charged; mostly new residential construction and some larger commercial expansion projects.
The Board also discussed areas which would not be charged impact fees including accessory apartments as defined in the current Zoning Ordinance (ZO). The Board also discussed in great detail with Mr. Russo and Mr. Seaverns the process in which and to whom would be charged Impact Fees; and how that is covered in various sections in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Seaverns stated that he didn’t believe the ordinance wasn’t clear on the process of who collects the fee. Mr. Seaverns also expressed concern that the “planning board” was used though out the document where he believes it should be the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) or Building Inspector. He also expressed concerns for the waiver section.
The Board reviewed various situations in which a waiver proposed in a new development would work. After much discussion, it was noted that anyone, including a developer or builder can propose alternative projects in lieu of paying the impact fees but that it was up to the Planning Board to recommend to the Board of Selectmen to decide and monitor any such proposals. They also noted which kinds of waivers would be allowed and that the Planning Board is not required to accept any of the waivers someone presents to them, as well.
Mr. Seaverns also expressed concerns for the use of the word assess. Mr. Colby read the related RSA noting that it has the word assess. It was noted that in this case the word assess just lets them know they are subject to the fee and not how much.
Ms. Chauvey noted that the Planning Board is not going to be setting specific amounts when a project comes in and gave a brief example. She noted that the Planning Board only says if the project should have a Impact Fee assessed.
Mr. Mayberry’s vast experience was noted again and that the proposed ordinance is an industry standard.
Throughout the discussions, when specific scenarios were aimed at the actual amount of fees, Mr. Russo and Ms. Chauvey noted that this first step is just for approving the ordinance and the setting of the fee schedule would follow. It was also noted that there are statistics that back up the fee schedule and that will be reviewed in great detail as the second step, at a later date if the ordinance passes. It was again noted that the fee schedule is not part of the ordinance. Mrs. Sears noted that was just how she had made the copies.
The Board also discussed where in the ordinance and how and when the fee is paid and to whom. They also reviewed the waiver process again as well. Discussion was on if the Planning Board is allowed to grant a waiver or not. Chair Stockus noted that the Town’s Attorney has reviewed this ordinance and had no issues.
Mr. Colby suggested that the wording for Accessory Apartment waiver should read so that the applicant doesn’t have to go before the Planning Board to get that granted. The Board and Ms. Chauvey agreed to that change.
Mr. Seaverns again expressed concern for the use of Planning Board when perhaps it should be the Zoning Board of Adjustment. They also discussed the waiver examples again and who would oversee such scenarios. The Board did not make any changes based on this discussion.
Ms. Chauvey noted the time line for the use of the fees collected. She noted that funds can be held/used up to six years but if they still don’t need to be returned if, in the sixth year, there is a major project already underway.
Ms. Chauvey noted that she has had questions posed via email from Karen Davidson who could not attend, noting that this meeting is not being aired on cable. Chair Stockus decided they could answer those questions at a second public hearing since other changes needed to be made.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to close the public hearing on the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance at approximately 8:04pm, and to renotice for a new, second public hearing on January 26, 2011 at 7:00pm.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Proposed Zoning Ordinance - newly reformatted & corrections
Chair Stockus opened the public hearing at 8:05pm and read the notice posted in the Foster’s Daily Democrat and at the Town Offices & Post Office.
Mr. Colby noted that Mr. Bacon had said that the first three pages have no formatting and there are no page numbers throughout the document but it will be corrected. Mr. Bacon also asked Mr. Colby to ask if Ms. Mooney could proof the document. Ms. Mooney agreed.
Discussion was on some issues of formatting that still needed to be made in the document and locations of definitions in the flood plain section but no changes were made to that section. It was also noted that this section will differ in formatting style due to its unique requirements.
Ms. Mooney noted that Roman numbers appear like letters and need to add periods. It was noted that it was due to the font used. The Board agreed to change the document’s font to Times New Roman. Throughout the document, the Zoning Board of Adjustment needs to be referred to as that and not the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Seaverns noted that the section authorizing the Building Code standards was missing. The Board agreed to where the missing section should go and that Mr. Colby will send the missing copy to Mrs. Sears to insert back into the document.
Mr. Seaverns noted that he believes there is an error in the amount of 120,000 square footage requirement for the duplex land area (lot envelope). The Board noted a similar change was approved by voters last year and should probably read 60,000 and just was omitted last year. Discussion was on if this change was too substantial to make this year. The Board agreed not to correct it at this point. The Board plans on a comprehensive review with substantial changes, like this one, to the ZO next year. The Board noted that they have suggestions from Jack Mettee and the Town Counsel on those corrections.
It was noted that a second public hearing will be needed to present the corrected, proofed, properly formatted document to the public. Ms. Chauvey recommended that Ms. Sears do the work. The Board and Mrs. Sears agreed. Ms. Mooney and Mrs. Sears will work together.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to close the public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance at 8:43pm and renotice for a new, second public hearing on January 26, 2011.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to adjourn at 8:44pm
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 4-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.
| 
