NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 27, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD JUNE 1, 2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen Representative Mr. Bill Booth
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Jon Caron
Mr. Scott Curry
Mr. Peter Bock, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
Mr. Skip Seaverns
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
The Planning Board had a discussion about signs on Route 4 and the reasons the Board needed to look at them. They talked about whether the sign ordinances were being consistently enforced and whether they represented businesses that had been approved by the Planning Board.
Mr. Smith said that the purpose of this meeting was to look at the subdivision regulations and checklist. Mr. Curry asked if the Board wanted to look at the procedure or the regulations. Mr. Caron said that the Board needed to look at what happened, what should happen, and what should be required. Ms. Bonser said that the Board needed to define a lot line adjustment. Mr. Curry said that the Board should decide whether they agreed or disagreed with the checklist. Ms. Bonser said that all fees needed to be paid before the Board would hear an application. Mr. Seaverns said that the Board needed to talk about whether they should waive the impact statement requirement for lot line adjustments. Mr. Smith said that lot line adjustments should be very simple. Mr. Caron said that impact statements
should not be necessary for lot line adjustments. Mr. Gylfphe said that lot line adjustments used to be among neighbors and now they were being used to take non buildable lots and make them buildable. Mr. Seaverns noted that lot line adjustments often made lots more conforming. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board was supposed to look at the impact. He said that he did not think the ownership was really important. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board should ask for copies of land deeds. Mr. Gylfphe said that if there was only one owner involved than the application should be considered a subdivision because lot line adjustments were supposed to be between neighbors. Ms. Bonser said that lot line adjustments should not create substandard lots. She said that something was not a subdivision until roads, buildings, etc were put in. Mr. Seaverns noted that lot line adjustments could result in 2 improved lots. Mr. Caron
said that it was important to look at whether 2 improved lots would be created or 2 unimproved lots would be created. He said that in his opinion there were 4 types of lot line adjustments. He said that the first was when 2 property owners wanted to move the line. He said that would create improved lots. He said that the second was when 2 property owners had 3 deeded lots and they wanted to bring it to 2. He said that the third type was when there were 2 deeds, a single owner, and 2 nonconforming lots. He said that at least one of the lots would need to be improved. He said that the final type of lot line adjustment involved 3 lot owners, 3 lots and moving the lines. The Board discussed these lot line adjustment types and wrote them on the blackboard. Mr. Caron said that the Planning Board should ask for chains of title. Mr. Gylfphe said that the Planning Board should have any registered plot plans for the property.
Ms. Bonser agreed that the Planning Board should have the deeds and plans for property that they looked at. Mr. Gylfphe said that lot line
adjustments should be so simple that the Planning Board could approve them in one night. Mr. Caron said that the Board could have an application for a minor subdivision. The Board continued to discuss the necessity of having an impact statement for a lot line adjustment. Mr. Smith said that it might be a good idea for the Planning Board to have 2 categories of lot line adjustments, major and minor. Mr. Gylfphe said that it was important to look at the location of the septic, the wells and the existing building. Ms. Bonser said that the Board needed to make it so people could not do lot line adjustments and subdivisions with the same application. She said that she also wanted to emphasize that all required fees needed to be paid before the Planning Board could hear the application. Mr. Seaverns noted
that the recording and travel fees could be paid after the plans were approved. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board should look at whether it was necessary for an applicant to get state subdivision approval in whether they had a subdivision or a lot line adjustment. Mr. Caron said that third type of lot line adjustment he had talked about might require state subdivision approval. He said that it would make a difference if the lots were improved or unimproved. Mr. Smith said that few lot line adjustments had existing homes and driveways. Mr. Gylfphe said that the Planning Board should have 4 plans. Mr. Caron said that applicants needed to have a perimeter survey with a survey seal. He said that the Board needed to be explicit that they had the power to waive things in certain circumstances. Mr. Seaverns said that the surveyor would find out the acreage of the property. Mr. Caron said that any survey would need to cover all
the land involved in the transfer using both the old and the new lines. Mr. Curry asked why lot line adjustments were of interest to the town. Mr. Caron said that the town needed to make sure the abutters were protected so the parties needed to come in front of the Planning Board. He said that it was in the interest of the town that clear titles be transferred. Mr. Curry said that he could understand the logic that the town wanted to have accurate property lines for the future. Ms. Bonser said that she thought the Board would find that there were major and minor lot line adjustments. Mr. Smith said that he had some thoughts about major and minor lot line adjustments. He said that the site plan regulations defined minor and major. Mr. Caron referred to regulation 676:4.
Ms. Bonser asked whether the current Interim Growth Management Ordinance meant that people could have one lot and create 3 additional lots. Mr. Seaverns said no. He said that people were not allowed to have more than 3 total lots created under the ordinance. Ms. Bonser said that the regulations should take into account multiple minor subdivisions on the same property. Mr. Caron said that the Planning Board needed to have a discussion about the timeline of applications. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board could state something in the regulations about once a developer had created a certain number of lots they needed to work on roads, adding cisterns, and other infrastructure. Mr. Gylfphe said that once the Planning Board went through the checklist they could go through the regulations and change them
to fit. Ms. Bonser asked if the Planning Board wanted to present a new book of zoning ordinances. Mr. Seaverns said that was ambitious but that yes it was the ultimate goal. Mr. Smith said that he thought the Planning Board should discuss this with as many people as possible. Mr. Caron suggested that the Board televise a public hearing about this where the Planning Board would do a presentation. Ms. Bonser suggested that the ordinances and other information could be put into the town report. Mr. Curry noted that there were contradictions between the Planning and Zoning regulations.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00pm. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. The Board members present voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
