NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2008
PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING
Approved 02/20/08, as amended
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair
Mr. Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair
Ms. Gail Mills, Secretary
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Representative
Mr. Scott Canney
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Raymond Howard Pastor George
Ms. Lucille Howard Mr. Dick Plantier, Applicant’s Developer
Mr. Kenneth Berry, Beals Associates Mr. Sam Demeritt, Conservation Commission
Mr. John Pierce Ms. Cheryl Smith, Conservation Commission
Ms. Mary Pierce Ms. Sue Mooney, Conservation Commission
Mr. Scott Curry Ms. Celia Abrams, Conservation Commission
Mr. Jim Bolduc Mr. Peter Landry, Surveyor
Mr. Skip Seaverns Mr. Thomas Sweeney
Mr. Lloyd Armitage Mr. Paul Colby, Nottingham Building Inspector
Ms. Patricia Armitage Ms. Marge Witham
Ms. Rhoda Capron Mr. Bill Netishen, Nottingham Selectman
Mr. Bob Macri Mr. Terry Bonser
Ms. Mary Bonser
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Secretary to the Planning Board
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:11 PM. He announced that minutes would be approved at the end of the meeting.
PUBLIC MEETINGS/HEARINGS
PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING – SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CHANGE OF USE (acceptance, compliance and final approval of a site plan review – change of use) – HIGHER GROUNDS BAPTIST CHURCH FOR DOROTHY BEAM LIMITED, LLC – 100 OLD TURNPIKE ROAD – MAP 4 LOT 8 – CASE #P07-19-SIT.
Chair Smith opened the public meeting at 7:15 PM.
Chair Smith announced that some members of the Planning Board had gone on a site walk of the property on Saturday, January 19, 2008. He stated that they had noticed a wet area behind the building to the left, which the Armitages’ have reported drains onto their property. He stated that they also checked the area of the leach field and did not see any wet areas there. Mr. Bock stated that structurally the building seems solid and parking seems adequate.
Mr. Plantier stated that there were two outstanding issues. The first had been a notarized letter from Dorothy Beams allowing representation of her property, which he submitted to Ms. Chauvey. The second was the revision of the impact statement where Ms. Beauchamp had believed they had quoted statistics.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the application of Higher Ground Baptist Church on behalf of Dorothy Beam Limited for a change of use at 100 Old Turnpike Road, Map 4 Lot 8 from light manufacturing to a House of Worship. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Smith opened the public hearing.
Mr. Armitage stated that he owns approximately eight acres behind the Beam property and he strongly feels that there is a definite septic problem from the property. Chair Smith stated that an inspection had been done on both the septic and leach field. Mr. Plantier stated that the Armitages’ septic failed and was dug up last year, noting that it is right out their front door. He stated that there is nothing the applicant can do about the wet area that Chair Smith had mentioned, noting that it is an existing condition created by years of run-off. Mr. Bock verified with Mr. Plantier that septic system has been, for the most part, dormant since 2001. Mr. Armitage stated that in the Spring there is a terrible odor in the back yard, near the big rock. Mr. Bock asked how long the Armitages’ have experienced this odor. Mr. Armitage replied that it has been about three years. Mr. Armitage stated that the smell was there when they bought the property. He further stated that his
system is a pump up system and the only thing that failed was the pump. Chair Smith stated that there is no reason to take this issue further when the septic is fairly new and has been recently inspected. He further noted that septics are outside of the Planning Board’s jurisdiction. At Mr. Bock’s inquiry, Mr. Plantier stated that he believes the smell is a natural smell from the swamp. Mr. Armitage did not agree that it was the odor from the swamp. Chair Smith, again stated that septics are out of the Planning Board’s jurisdiction and informed Mr. Armitage that he could report the issue to the Building Inspector or the Board of Selectmen. At Mr. Bock’s inquiry, Paul Colby, Nottingham Building Inspector, stated that the Armitages could file a written complaint with his office.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant has any intentions for the home. Mr. Plantier stated that they have no plans for the use of the house at this time. Mr. Armitage stated that the Planning Board has approved three plats over the years with different property lines, and asked which one was correct. Chair Smith stated that the Planning Board is presented plats from Licensed Land Surveyors. He stated that if there is a boundary line dispute then the two property owners must resolve that between themselves. Pastor George and Mr. Plantier both assured Mr. Armitage that they wished to work the issues out with him.
Chair Smith asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Bock reminded Pastor George that the Nottingham Food Pantry is a very important outreach program to him, personally, and he strongly encouraged Pastor George to seek out the volunteers of this pantry before the Church set out on their own endeavor in this area.
Chair Smith closed the public hearing.
Mr. Canney made a motion to approve the application of Higher Ground Baptist Church on behalf of Dorothy Beam Limited for a change of use at 100 Old Turnpike Road, Map 4 Lot 8 from light manufacturing to a House of Worship. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING – 2008 PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES/AMENDMENTS
Chair Smith opened the public hearing at 7:50 PM
XVII Conservation Overlay District:
Chair Smith read the draft proposal.
Ms. Beauchamp asked the Planning Board to strike proposed statement XVII B, 8 and replace it with, “Promote energy conservation efficiency and explore other ways to reduce carbon emissions among town residents.” She also suggested adding the word “contiguous” to proposed XVII F, 3. Mr. Colby stated that that sentence should also read, “…a Class V or better road.” Ms. Beauchamp agreed.
Ms. Carlson asked to see the map. Mr. Demeritt explained that the dark orange is the core area defined by the Coastal Water Plan, the dark purple is the corridor area defined by the Fish & Game Wildlife Action Plan, the light yellow is defined by the Coastal Conservation Plan, and the pink areas are the supporting areas that the Nottingham Conservation Commission has proposed for wildlife corridors. Ms. Carlson asked if everything in color would be affected by this ordinance. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it was only optional for lots 20 acres or larger. Ms. Beauchamp explained that the Conservation Commission had approached the Planning Board with a mandatory requirement in place but the Planning Board had decided to present it as optional. Ms. Carlson asked if developable road frontage would
be cut in half if 500’ of a total 1000’ of road frontage was in the purple area. Mr. Gylfphe informed her that it would still be developable and conventional subdivisions could still happen with the ordinance being presented as optional. Chair Smith stated that if someone chose to go with a conservation subdivision, they would do a build-out on a convention subdivision to see how many lots can fit on the property. He stated that the applicant would then shrink the plan down to fit the lesser requirements of the proposed Conservation Overlay District. He stated that you would end up with the same amount of lots but a smaller developed area of land. At Ms. Capron’s inquiry, Chair Smith stated that if you had 20 acres, you potentially have 10 house lots. Ms. Beauchamp stated that this proposed ordinance is an option to offer so that all the uplands do not get taken up by development. Chair Smith stated that this ordinance
will still allow conventional subdivisions, will allow conservation subdivisions with a minimum of frontage of 100’ and a minimum lot size of one acre, and will also allow conservation subdivisions with larger frontages and lots if the land is big enough. Ms. Carlson asked if it would still be ok to subdivide 40 acres with 1000’ of frontage into five eight-acre lots. Mr. Gylfphe told her that was acceptable.
Mr. Colby stated that he did not feel that the language of the ordinance indicated that it was optional. Mr. Curry stated that he felt the ordinance was void of many details, including whether it was mandatory or not. He voiced concern at the use of the word “shall” within the ordinance. He also believes that the ordinance leaves a lot to the discretion of the Board such as how much land goes into conservation and under what criteria.
Mr. Pierce asked what good the property would be when it could not be built upon. Chair Smith explained that if someone goes with a conservation subdivision, they will have been allowed the maximum build-out on the property. Mr. Pierce asked if the owner still remains responsible for paying taxes on that property even though you can not do anything with it. Chair Smith stated that the idea is that what can be done has already been done. Mr. Pierce, using is lot as an example, asked who would be responsible for the taxes on the piece that went into conservation. He was informed that it would depend on how he did his subdivision, but most likely, it would be the Home Owners Association of the development. Mr. Pierce confirmed with members of the board that the new owners would be responsible
for the taxes. Mr. Pierce asked if this ordinance would change the zoning on Route 4. Chair Smith stated it would not.
Ms. Beauchamp, addressing Mr. Curry, stated that the proposed Conservation District Overlay zoning ordinance was written the way it was intended, to show where the sensitive conservation areas are. She added that the Conservation Subdivision Regulation would contain all the guidelines, noting that this would allow the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission to work with developers to design appropriate subdivisions. Mr. Bock asked if the land placed in conservation would still be able to be used for such things as forest land, pasture land, logging, etc.. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Conservation Commission had discussed what would be allowed and what would not but she did not know if forest management had been discussed. Ms. Mooney stated that forest management with an approved forest
management plan would be allowed.
Mr. Curry clarified with Ms. Beauchamp that this proposed zoning ordinance would enable the Planning Board to come up with their own regulations. He stated that the town would be voting for something they would ultimately have no input on. Ms. Beauchamp stated that all the regulations have public hearings. Mr. Curry agreed but noted that they do not get to vote. Ms. Carlson agreed with Mr. Curry’s sentiment. Chair Smith stated that that is the way it is, the Planning Board is charged with that responsibility.
Ms. Carlson stated that she felt this was quite a large undertaking considering the amount of land and owners involved and she believed that the amount of time the Planning Board has allowed for people to take it all in and educate themselves is not adequate. She asked if there was going to be any type of notification to land owners. Chair Smith stated that he believed the Conservation Commission had mailed out letters to owners in the core area. Ms. Bonser and Ms. Carlson both informed Chair Smith that they had not been notified. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Conservation Commission sent approximately 100 letters to land owners of lots that are 20-acres or larger in the core area. Ms. Mooney reported that the Conservation Commission has also made personal calls and placed the proposal on the
web site. Ms. Smith stated that the core area also only applies to those lots that have 50% or more of their land in the dark orange area.
Mr. Netishen asked for someone from the Conservation Commission to give a rationale for the 20-acre requirement. Ms. Smith replied that 20-acres seemed reasonable when looking at what other towns are requiring. Ms. Abrams replied that the rationale is that there must be at least 10 acres to put into a conservation easement.
Ms. Capron asked how this plan differs from the previous cluster ordinance. She asked if it addressed any of the they had had with that ordinance. Chair Smith responded that he had not looked at the previous cluster ordinance, noting that it has been off the books for a while. Ms. Smith stated that one issue was the quality of lands being placed in conservation and she informed Ms. Capron that the proposed ordinance and regulations address this problem.
Mr. Macri asked if there were any guidelines for a situation where a build-out of a conventional subdivision produces more lots than the build out of the conservation subdivision, or vice versa, on the same lot. Chair Smith stated that one way should not produce more lots than the other. Mr. Macri asked if the ordinance was written to allow a choice in that situation.
Mr. Seaverns, responding to Ms. Capron’s earlier question regarding the difference from the previous cluster ordinance, stated that another large difference with this is that the ordinance is aimed a conservation where the previous one was simply a cluster subdivision anywhere in town. He then asked about the aquifer overlay for Nottingham. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the aquifer is more restrictive and that is what would apply.
Mr. McCall questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance, and stated that it is too vague.
Mr. Berry read written comments and submitted a copy of same for the Board’s file. He stated that, although some of his comments had already been addressed, he thought it was important for the board to note that availability of open space conservation development would be a positive addition to the ordinance for any piece of property, including the areas depicted as white on the map for the proposed Conservation Overlay District.
Mr. Berry spoke to the Board about density calculation and roadway access. He supplied the Board with a copy of an e-mail from Ben Stein, State Planner, which supported using a formula for developing the number of lots rather than requiring a yield plan. Mr. Berry informed the Board that there are few developers who will do a conservation subdivision simply because it is the right thing to do once they have invested in the conventional yield plan. He further suggested that if the Board opted to go with a yield plan, the definition and expectations be very clear. He asked the Board to keep in mind that in a voluntary situation if they yield plan options are too severe, the developer may choose to forgo that option and develop conventionally. Mr. Berry noted for the record that Nottingham
regulations do no currently allow for cul-de-sac roads. He requested and suggested that the Planning Board consider less restrictive roadway configurations when looking at implementing open space/conservation subdivisions. He stated that multiple points of access are counter productive to the appropriate conservation land. He reported that the surrounding community data he was submitting would show that other towns allow density bonuses for preservation of roadway frontages in their existing condition.
In conclusion, Mr. Berry stated that he highly supports the Conservation Commission’s efforts in the preparation of this posting and that, overall, he highly supports conservation subdivision development concept that the Planning Board is considering. He stated that he hopes there is a reasonable balance between conservation and development.
Acknowledging Mr. Berry’s and Mr. Curry’s comments, Chair Smith stated that much of what they have discussed will be the details found in the Subdivision Regulations, if the Conservation Overlay District is approved. Mr. Curry suggested that each instant of the word “shall” be replaced with “may” in Section F of the proposed ordinance. He also suggested changing the language in Section E to reflect that the ordinance is optional.
Ms. Copeland, Executive Director, Strafford Regional Planning Commission, introduced herself and stated that she was one of the people who worked on Land Conservation Plan for NH Coastal Watersheds. She informed all present that the book she was using to provide them with the following data was available in the Planning Office. She stated that she was concerned that something was being lost in the discussions taking place and she wanted to give an explanation of the land conservation plan. She stated that the plan was done for 43 coastal watersheds in seacoast New Hampshire. She stated that what is important is that this plan was done by the Forest Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the two Regional Planning Commissions. She informed everyone that it was funded by the Coastal Program, NOA,
EPA, NH Charitable Foundation, and the NH Estuaries. She stated that it is the first science-based review of natural resources and their values. She informed those present that Nottingham is home to a lot of the values that are rated the highest for the whole coastal watershed, including but not limited to forest ecosystem, fresh water systems involving special significant stream reaches, floodplain forests, riparian zones, high quality stream watersheds, and critical plant and wildlife areas. She explained that all stated that Nottingham is blessed. She explained that these factors were all overlaid on each other and the focus areas were derived from the top 20 percent. She stated that areas adjacent to these were called supporting landscape. Ms. Copeland stated that the first thing that was done to create the plan was that the researchers from the NH Forest Society went to every single town in the Coastal Watershed and went through their Master
Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Conservation Plans. Ms. Copeland stated that the overlay is about protecting the highest quality of resources that exist not just in Nottingham but within the whole complex that makes up the Coastal Watershed. Acknowledging Mr. Berry’s comment regarding the cost of yield plans, Ms. Copeland stated that Durham applies a different process in which they first look at the values of the land. She recommended that Nottingham implement this type of a process in which they would first look at what they are trying to protect. In closing she reiterated that Nottingham has a tremendous amount of land in town with extremely high resource values. Mr. Berry agreed that there are areas in Nottingham that require more protection than others. He informed Members of the Planning Board that Barrington and Stratham also use a process similar to Durham’s and he had included those towns in the packet he had submitted.
Ms. Bonser stated that there seems to be an unintentional representation that Nottingham is not doing anything for conservation and noted for the record that there are about 37,000 acres in Nottingham and over 8,000 of it is protected. She added that Raymond is striving to get ten percent of their land into conservation by 2010. She stated that it has been put into conservation without anyone being told to do it. Acknowledging the analyses referred to by Ms. Copeland, Ms. Bonser stated that they do not take into account that Nottingham is also a community where people live and work. She stated that her big concern is the lack of notice. She feels everyone should have been noticed. She also asked if the ordinance had been presented to the Town’s attorney to be sure of its legality. She stated that this is not something that should be done quickly. She stated that she is for conservation but believes it should have more consideration. Chair Smith stated that the ordinance is
not something that is going to force anyone to do anything. He stated that it will allow an option that has not been available for some time and will allow the Planning Board to use better land use controls when they are going through the subdivision process. Mr. Sweeney asked if there was going to be another meeting. Chair Smith informed everyone that this was the first public hearing and there would be a second held on February 5, 2008. He stated that they would be very limited on the changes they could make on February 5th. Mr. Sweeney stated that there are significant problems with designing these clusters, such as run-off, that the Town will end up handling when it gets down to the road. He felt that people in town should have quite a bit of input on the subdivision ordinance. He stated that people should have more time. Mr. Landry stated that he agreed with Mr. Berry and Mr. Sweeney, noting that he did not feel it was
fair for the Planning Board to propose the ordinance without supplying the public with the subdivision regulation that goes with it. He stated he believed voting that way was risky, at best. He asked if there had been any thought given to what would be offered to those land owners in the white areas depicted on the map, noting that those areas would be at a disadvantage. He stated that if the town allowed this overlay district it would open the door to a means for writing building and subdivision regulations to further burden land owners.
Mr. Landry reported another problem, stating that you could not get a 30,000 sq. ft. contiguous upland, best conditions, on a one-acre lot, excluding the setbacks, which is what is being proposed under Section F, Minimum Dimensions. He stated that, best conditions, there are 19,280 sq. ft. on a one-acre lot, not including the 25’ setbacks.
Ms. Smith informed everyone that lots in the white areas depicted on the map were not being excluded and would be allowed to do conservation subdivisions. Ms. Beauchamp stated that those areas would not be offered density bonuses. Mr. Berry stated that the white areas are not included anywhere in the proposal. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the proposal does not apply to them. Mr. Curry stated that is a problem. Mr. Seaverns stated it is not a problem when it is viewed as a conservation proposal and not a way to open the door for development.
Chair Smith called a 10 minute recess at 8:00PM.
Chair Smith reopened the meeting at 8:10 PM.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to change proposed Article XVII, F,2. Lot Envelope from, “Thirty-thousand (30,000) contiguous square foot upland buildable soil area,” to, “Eighteen-thousand (18,000) contiguous square foot upland buildable soil area.”
Mr. Gylfphe stated that he would also like to see a number five (5.) added to Article XVII, D, which recognized the areas depicted as white on the map. Chair Smith asked if there was any reason those areas had not been included in the bonus factoring, noting that if they were added in here they would fall under all the same conditions as the others. Mr. Seaverns stated that this is a conservation proposal and those lots do not have conservation backing. Ms. Mooney stated it is not that they do not have conservation backing, they simply are not the priority areas and only areas of the highest value have been chosen for the Conservation Overlay District. She added that all of Nottingham could be included but that would not indicate the properties’ conservation value. Chair Smith stated that
that is something that could be set by the regulations. He stated that different regulations could be created for the different areas. Mr. Seaverns stated that this is a broader issue in that first the Town must allow the ability for open space subdivisions to take place and a subset of those open space subdivisions would be the conservation subdivision that might offer more incentives and some actual bonuses. He stated what is crucial is the map. He stated that it defines those areas that are high value conservation lands. He stated that it is the most important aspect. He strongly encouraged the Board to consider deleting Sections E and F and invoking the map. He stated once those items are in place, the Board could then write the regulations to invoke developers to incorporate the critical areas into their subdivision design for open space. Mr. Berry stated that Sections D, E, and F are the only paragraphs that give the Board the
latitude and authority to do a conservation subdivision. Ms. Beauchamp agreed. Mr. Seaverns stated that the map is the key and the help that the Planning Board needs for anything they want to do with the subdivisions. Mr. Berry asked Mr. Seaverns what else could be done with the ordinance if the Planning Board did not invoke RSA 674:21 Innovative Land Use Controls. Mr. Seaverns stated that that is the balance that the Planning Board needs to try to achieve, adding that it could not be done in the regulations. He stated that the difference is that you provide the bonuses here that are applicable. He stated that the bonuses are not one-acre lots, the bonuses are half the minimum requirements that already exist some place else in the regulations. He added that he did not know how to put that in the ordinance, but that by invoking the map, something would be in place that the developer then has to use to incorporate those critical things into
their design. He further stated that when they incorporate it into their design, here are the bonuses they get. He stated that this seems the logical way to do this. Mr. Berry asked Mr. Seaverns if he was considering the one-acre lot a bonus. Mr. Seaverns stated one-acre lots are whatever you want to call them. Mr. Berry stated that one-acre lots are a design alternative. Mr. Seaverns stated that the problem is that anyone in the business will look at the map and say that the town does not have any data for the white areas to provide them the means to do a conservation subdivision. Mr. Bolduc, addressing Mr. Seaverns comments, inquired as to whether or not the town would want to entice conservation development in the white areas. Mr. Seaverns stated that he views the whole area as open space, but he feels that he has to view the areas that have documented data as those areas that have high value to conservation. He added that a
point value system could be incorporated into the equation process that would drive bonuses based on the conservation value that exists for each property. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Bolduc, Mr. Seaverns stated that the various bonuses would be written in the Subdivision Regulation. Mr. Bolduc stated that one-acre lots are not a bonus. Mr. Seaverns stated that Mr. Bolduc was focused on the word bonus, however, Nottingham currently offers two-acre zoning only and this provides something optional. He felt that they could all talk about the perfect land, which Nottingham does not typically have or they could talk about the actual land in Nottingham where the lot dimensions most likely will not fit; driving the lots bigger. He also noted that there will still be the issue of the developer coming in front of the Board saying that they cannot possibly create a one-acre lot with the rules and regulations that Nottingham has in place. Mr. Seaverns
stated that in most cases he believes this to be true, however, the reality will be that one-acre lots will be the minimum requirement. He noted that there are two sides to this and the question on the other side is whether or not Nottingham is striving for one-acre lots and the answer has to be yes. Mr. Gylfphe stated that one-acre is the minimum requirement. Mr. Seaverns stated he understands that but asked why they would have one-acre minimum when it is not obtainable. He stated it should be bigger. Ms. Smith disagreed, saying that some lots simply are not buildable lots. Mr. Seaverns stated that is not an argument that would be won with developers.
Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp if Sections E and F could be incorporated into the Subdivision Regulation. Ms. Beauchamp stated that if Sections E and F are removed from the proposed ordinance, any lot regardless of size can come in for a conservation subdivision. Mr. Gylfphe stated that all dimensions are in the Zoning Ordinances where they should be and what goes on the lot is what is in the Subdivision Regulations. He stated that he felt Sections E and F should be left in but language should be added to incorporate those lots in the white areas. Mr. Seaverns agreed with Mr. Gylfphe that the requirements should be in the Zoning Ordinance but he believes the document has gone way too far for what the residents, Planning Board, and Conservation Commission are ready for. Ms. Smith stated that the
Conservation Commission has been working with the Planning Board on this proposal over the past few months. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he believes conservation subdivisions are coming and that this ordinance should go on the books to give the people some place to start. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Planning Board has the option to remove the proposal from the table and work on it over the next year. She stated that she did not want them to put forward something they are not comfortable with. Mr. Seaverns asked if it would make sense to turn this into an open-space subdivision proposal with the same requirements where the capability exists for conservation to come into play. He reiterated that the map is very important. He again reiterated that the bigger picture is the open space development option, stating that within that ordinance should be a sub-set for conservation development. Chair Smith stated that if they were going to make that
broad of a change to the document, he felt that they should withdraw it and look more into the detail for next year. Mr. Gylfphe stated that Section D of the proposed ordinance refers to the conservation map. Mr. Berry stated that everything prior to Section E has to do with invoking the map and he feels this is all appropriate. He stated the he did not think there is anything in Section E, Applicability, that would fall apart under a name change, but noted that he was surprised to see that there were no provisions for the white areas depicted on the map. He stated that there is no name for this other type of subdivision in the document. He invokes the term conservation open space development because that is typically the term that is coming into vogue. He felt that they could call it whatever they want, noting that they could define conservation restrictions in the subdivision regulation. Mr. Berry stated that they would not have to make
major changes to Section E to add the conservation components and name the subdivision. He felt one of the components that should be added to Section E is the requirement for what amount of land must be placed in conservation. He stated that Nottingham falls in line with their surrounding communities, noting that he felt the building setbacks were a little restrictive.
Chair Smith asked members if they wanted to proceed with the document as is or make major changes. Mr. Bock stated that this has been an extraordinary experience and he feels he needs more clarity and time to support the proposal, adding that he felt it needs the support and refinement of the greater community. Ms. Mills stated that she also would like to have more time, as she really wants to see this pass. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he felt this document was workable.
Mr. Bolduc stated that he felt the ordinance would work with a few minor modifications. Mr. Gylfphe stated he thought the ordinance the ordinance would pass with a few minor changes, such as adding in the white areas depicted on the map and changing the Lot Envelope to 18,000. Chair Smith stated the he feels they have a workable document. He stated that he believes the Planning Board will have a slow year ahead of them and this would allow them time to review the ordinance throughout the year. Mr. Landry asked about the completeness of the subdivision regulation that would accompany the ordinance. Ms. Beauchamp informed Mr. Landry that the Planning Board has not yet worked on the subdivision regulation. Mr. Landry asked if the Board had considered that, while working on the subdivision
regulation, they may find areas in the Zoning Ordinance that they should have handled differently. Chair Smith stated that he does not believe that the ordinance does much other than provide people with an option to conventional subdivisions. Mr. Seaverns stated that an alternative to conventional subdivisions is open space subdivisions, not necessarily conservation subdivisions. Mr. Berry stated he thinks the document is a very good umbrella and that conservation could still be included by adding language to Section E.
Chair Smith asked all to review Section E to see what changes would make it work. He recommended striking the word “all” from the first sentence. Acknowledging an earlier comment from Mr. Berry, he suggested adding “or lots” after the words “of a parent lot,” and changing the word “is” to “are.” Mr. Berry suggested that the sentence they were speaking about end after the word “larger,” and a new sentence be written to say, “Parcels located in at least fifty (50%) percent of the Conservation Overlay District which is depicted on the Conservation Overlay District Map (dated…..) will be given special conservation considerations as defined in the Conservation Subdivision Regulations.” Ms. Beauchamp agreed but asked
that the word “will” be changed to “may.”
Chair Smith asked all to review Section F for changes. He asked that the word “all” be stricken from the first sentence and that the first instance of the word “shall” be replaced with “may.” Mr. Gylfphe noted that the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement needed to be changed to 18,000. Ms. Chauvey noted that the words “or better” needed to be added after the words, “…on a Class V road.”
Mr. Berry then inquired about the land being placed into conservation and noted that language should be added to say that any land that is not being designated as a lot or to a lot must be placed in conservation. Ms. Chauvey stated she did not understand this as she had thought the proposal was that half the buildable land would be placed into conservation but this seemed to have the ability to amount to more, or less, than half. Mr. Berry stated that the outcome would depend on how it was written, noting that some communities say 50% and some say that whatever land does not go into lots must go into conservation. Chair Smith stated that he did not see those requirements. Ms. Smith stated that they are not in the document. She further stated that the Conservation Commission does not want less
than 10 contiguous acres for conservation because they would not be able to get a land trust to take it, leaving the Conservation Commission to monitor the property. Chair Smith stated the he believed the majority of 20 acre lots that come through for subdivision will yield less than 10 acres of conservation land. Ms. Beauchamp and Mr. Berry stated that the regulation needs to be written to state that there is a minimum requirement of 10 acres to be place into conservation. Mr. Berry further stated that if the property cannot go into current use you run into tax issues. The Board agreed to add a number five (5.) to Section F stating, “Undeveloped land must be a minimum of 10 contiguous acres and must be placed in conservation.”
Mr. Landry asked if the land placed into conservation had to have road frontage. Chair Smith stated that access to the conservation land would be through easements.
Ms. Beauchamp stated that she strongly felt the wording should say 50% of the land being developed because if someone comes in with 100 acres for subdivision, Nottingham does not want only 10 acres being placed into conservation, they would want 50 acres. Mr. Gylfphe agreed. Mr. Bolduc stated that if the developer of the 100 acre lot ended up having to do 1.25-acre lots within his subdivision, he may end up with only 40 acres left over. He feels that that is a better situation for Nottingham than if the developer decided to conventionally subdivide. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she believed the loss of a lot to gain the required 50% would balance out with the decreased cost of the infrastructure required in a conventional subdivision. Mr. Bolduc agreed, to a point, noting that cost of
infrastructure is not the only thing a developer would look at. Chair Smith stated that he believed those details should go into the subdivision regulation and that the regulation would provide a calculation that would yield more that 10 acres on a 500 acre lot. Ms. Smith stated that the calculation needs to be stated somewhere. Ms. Chauvey again asked for clarification, stating that her interpretation of where they were going with this is that if someone comes in with a 100 acre lot and wants to develop 20 acres of, they will be required to put the remaining 80 acres into conservation. Ms. Smith confirmed that Ms. Chauvey’s interpretation was correct. Ms. Chauvey asked for someone to repeat the specific wording that was going to be used for the number five being added to Section F. Ms. Smith stated, “Undeveloped land shall be placed in conservation and must be of 10 contiguous acres or more.” Mr. Bolduc stated that this
should be in the subdivision regulation. Ms. Smith stated that they have been working on a subdivision regulation, however, have not presented it to the Planning Board, yet. Chair Smith stated that he felt this sentence was too restrictive if placed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Smith stated that the 10 or more acre requirement must go in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Berry stated that he felt undeveloped land was not the correct term. Mr. Berry suggested changing the sentence to read, “The minimum conservation parcel will be 10 acres in size.” Mr. Seaverns stated that he believed they would be presented with the minimum 10 acre parcel every time. Ms. Smith suggested, “Fifty percent of the parent lot(s) being developed shall be placed in conservation and must be of 10 contiguous acres or more.” Mr. Bolduc again voiced concern with the determination of 50% being placed in zoning, stating that the specific
determination should be placed in the subdivision regulation. He believes that having 50% stated in the ordinance will turn people away at the voting booths. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she did not believe the Board should use the term “undeveloped land.” Chair Smith stated that he felt 50% was too restrictive. Ms. Beauchamp read the draft regulation pertaining to this issue for the record. Chair Smith asked if this needed to be in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bolduc stated it does not. Chair Smith stated that they were going to leave that out of zoning and work on it for the subdivision regulation. He further stated that it is the Planning Board’s goal to keep the ordinance as clean and restriction free as possible. All suggestions for a number five (5) under Section F were stricken.
Chair Smith stated that he did not see anything in the ordinance pertaining to the aquifer district. Ms. Beauchamp added Section G to state, “This ordinance does not apply to the Aquifer Protection District.”
Ms. Mills and Mr. Bock left the meeting.
Other Proposed Zoning Changes/Amendments
Referring to the Ms. Mills’ and Mr. Bock’s exit, Mr. Seaverns asked how the Planning Board was going to determine changes without a quorum. Mr. Bolduc stated that the meeting can continue since it started with a quorum. Ms. Beauchamp stated that no more changes can be made to what has been posted if the board does not have a quorum. Ms. Chauvey replied that the RSA state that you can continue a meeting, including votes, if a member walks out as long as you started with a quorum. Mr. Bonser and Mr. Bolduc agreed. Ms. Beauchamp stated that her understanding was that they could discuss the issues all night long but could not make any changes without a quorum being present. She asked if the Board was confident in their decision to move forward. Chair Smith stated that he was
confident that they were not going to make any major changes to the final document.
Chair Smith asked for comment on the proposed removal of the definition of Cluster Development. There was no response.
Chair Smith asked for comment on the proposed removal of the definition of Buildable Area and its replacement with Lot Envelope. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Mr. Landry (who had left the meeting) had said that a lot containing 45,000 contiguous square foot upland buildable soil area and which meets the setbacks is larger than two acres. Mr. Bonser stated that Mr. Landry had said the lot would need to be 2.07 acres and have 300’ of frontage. Chair Smith stated that currently the zoning requires 60,000. Mr. Bonser agreed, noting that currently the developers go to the boundaries, not to the setbacks. Chair Smith suggested doubling the 19,280 figure provided by Mr. Landry earlier during the discussions of the one-acre lots. Mr. Seaverns stated that one of reasons the Planning Board was
going with Lot Envelope was to take out all the setback stuff. He stated that he did not believe the end of the last sentence in the proposed Lot Envelope definition should be there and that the 60,000 should be put back in. He noted that this would not change what they had been their past interpretation. Chair Smith stated that he believed the Planning Board had changed their idea of Lot Envelope because of case law that they had read. He stated that the case law had indicated that setbacks could not be included in the buildable area. Mr. Seaverns agreed, stating that was why the Planning Board was going to use the term Lot Envelope and not Buildable Area. He stated that the only goal of the Lot Envelope is to determine acceptable lots. He added that once a lot is determined to be acceptable then you would apply all the setbacks that are applicable. Chair Smith, acknowledging Mr. Seaverns implication, stated that he believes the best
thing to at this point, without affecting other areas, is to change the proposed 45,000 to 40,000.
Chair Smith asked if there were any comments or concerns to the recommended change to remove drainage way from Fit for Building. There were no comments.
Chair Smith asked if there were any comments or concerns to the recommended change from “public right-of-way” to “on a Class V road or better.: Mr. Colby informed the Planning Board that the definition for frontage needs to include lots that front roads that have been accepted by the Planning Board. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Zoning Ordinance contains a grandfather clause. Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp to add “or on a road that has been accepted and approved by the Planning Board.”
Chair Smith asked if there were any comments or concerns to the recommended change for Structure (see draft proposal). Mr. Colby asked the Board to remove the term “trailer” from the proposed definition, explaining that mobile home had already been covered and permits are not issued for trailers that are on wheels. He also stated that currently the cost of installing wells is nothing, but if the Planning Board includes wells in the definition of structure, the building permit fee for each and every well will be $150. Mr. Seaverns asked why. Mr. Colby stated that the building code requires building permits for structures and in addition to the building permit, both an electrical permit and plumbing permit would need to be obtained for a well. Nottingham’s fee for each permit is
$50. Mr. Colby stated that he also has a problem with liquid storage tanks being included in the definition, noting that currently a permit must be applied for if someone is installing a gas tank, however, the building code specifically exempts water tanks under 5,000 gallons. He stated that this will require a permit to pulled for the installation of water purification or softener systems. Mr. Colby stated that accessory sheds needs to be removed from the next bullet because accessory sheds over 120 square feet do require a building permit. He stated that even under 120 sq. ft. an accessory shed is still a structure. Mr. Bonser stated that he did not feel a septic system should be labeled a structure. Chair Smith stated that septic systems have been around and around and he did not want to get into it tonight because it was getting late. Mr. Colby informed the Board that if the ordinance passes with septics included, septics will not be
able to be any closer to each other than 100’. Mr. Bonser stated that in the Planning Board’s attempt to ensure that septics do not affect abutting properties, they were going to see people’s septics leaking into their own wells. Chair Smith stated that he felt if they were going to allow septics to be 25’ from the boundary in the cluster subdivisions then he did not think that it should be any more that that for traditional subdivisions. Mr. Seaverns stated that depending on your interpretation of the zoning ordinances, currently the town requires 50’ for traditional conforming lots and 20’ for non-conforming lots.
Ms. Chauvey excused herself, stating that she needed to leave.
Chair Smith asked if there were any other comments or concerns to the remaining proposed changes. Mr. Colby recommended that the Board reword the proposed change to Article VII, A, 5 to read “Erection of auxiliary structures greater than 120 sq. ft. in area.” Mr. Colby informed the Planning Board that he is required by law to post the number of building permits issued, but stated that it was fine for the Planning Board to recommend removal of that item since it was redundant.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Canney seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 3-0.
Meeting adjourned at 11:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
