NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 17, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD MAY 24, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. David Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Mark Harding
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. David Wright, Economic Development Director
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING- WEBER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Henry Weber, Mr. Peter Landry
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40pm.
Mr. Landry explained the location of the lot. He said that it was next to the library and that there was an existing dwelling. He said that the existing dwelling was 600-800ft back and there were 10 acres with 200 feet of frontage. He said that there was a ghost driveway and an existing driveway. He explained the plan and he said that each lot would be conforming. He said that they had wanted to make the lot more useable. He said that the Zoning Board of Adjustment had approved the Weber application. He said that the bounds had been set and the lot lines were flagged. He said that there 61,600 feet of contiguous upland. He said that they were working on getting state subdivision approval but they were still waiting. Ms. Bonser said that she liked the proposed configuration better
than the current one. Mr. Smith asked if the bounds were set. Mr. Landry said yes. Mr. Gylfphe said that the applicant needed a topographic waiver for the entire property. Mr. Landry noted that they were not creating any new lots. He said that there was no chance for further development of the land. Mr. Seaverns said that on the plan under Dimensional Requirement Area it should state that the lot was in a commercial zone. He also said that the applicant should get a topography waiver for the entire lot.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion that the Planning Board accept the Weber lot line adjustment application. Mr. Harding seconded that motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Smith read the request from the applicant for a topography waiver of the entire lot.
Ms. Bonser made a motion that the Planning Board approve the topography waiver. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Seaverns asked if the 911 numbers would have changed. Mr. Weber said no. Mr. Smith suggested recessing the application until June 7, 2006 at 7:15pm.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board recess the Weber application until June 7, 2006 at 7:15pm.
Mr. Weber said that the buyers were present and he said that recessing the application would create a financial hardship. He said that they had been working around a 30 day appeal period and this would change when that 30 days started. Ms. Bonser suggested that the Planning Board schedule a meeting sooner. Mr. Seaverns said that they didn't have any workshops scheduled sooner. Ms. Mills said that she thought it could become an issue if the Planning Board started scheduling meetings to help out applicants. She noted that would set a precedent and the Planning Board would have to meet every week. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board should publish in their rules that they take at least 2 meetings to approve applications. He said that the Planning Board did not do conditional approvals.
Mr. Seaverns suggested the following motion:
Based on the Nottingham subdivision regulations, the Nottingham Planning Board has determined that the qualifications for the Weber Lot Line Adjustment have been met except for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services subdivision approval. Consideration for final approval of this application has been recessed to June 7, 2006 at 7:15pm.
Mr. Gylfphe withdrew his previous motion.
Mr. Gylfphe made the motion suggested by Mr. Seaverns. Ms. Bonser seconded that motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- GAZZOLA SUBDIVISION:
OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Petra Gazzola, Mr. Roscoe Blaisdell
The Chair called the public hearing to order at 8:30pm.
Mr. Blaisdell explained that Ms. Gazzola's property was in the middle of the state park. He said that they had state subdivision approval and they wanted to do a backlot subdivision. He said that 23 acres would not be developed. He said that Ms. Gazzola does live on this property. He said that he had not set granite bounds yet and he needed to get a 911 number. Mr. Seaverns said that Ms. Gazzola's parcel was inaccessible from Nottingham. Mr. Wright said that the road appeared to be Class 6. Ms. Gazzola said that it was a Class 5 road. Mr. Wright said that it would need to be on the plan that Deerfield police/fire/ambulance would respond to accidents on the property. Ms. Bonser read out loud a letter from the Board of Selectmen stating that Ms. Gazzola lived on a Class 5 road in
Nottingham. Mr. Smith read a letter from the Fire Department. It stated that they recommended any new house have a sprinkler system. Mr. Blaisdell asked about the cost of that. Mr. Smith said that installing a sprinkler system usually cost between $5,000 and $6,000. Ms. Gazzola said that she thought putting in a sprinkler system was a good idea. Mr. Blaisdell asked if he should put a note #9 on the plan. Mr. Seaverns said yes. Mr. Smith said that the applicant needed to get a waiver from the cistern requirement. Mr. Gylfphe said that the applicant would also need a topography waiver for the complete lot. Mr. Smith said there needed to be a boundary marker where the stone walls met. Mr. Seaverns pointed out that a drill hole had been found. He also pointed out a map mistake on the plan that needed to be fixed. Ms. Copeland asked if there was anything stating that there would be no further subdivision of
the land. Ms. Bonser said that it was stated on the plan. Ms. Copeland asked if it would be on the deed. Ms. Bonser asked if Ms. Gazzola would put it on the deed. Ms. Gazzola said yes. Mr. Seaverns asked if note #10 on the plan could state the total frontage in accordance with the zoning regulations.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board accept the Gazzola subdivision application. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Smith asked if the Planning Board should send the application to Strafford Regional Planning Commission. Ms. Copeland said she did not think so.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to waive the requirement for a site walk of the Gazzola property. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the Gazzola subdivision application until June 7, 2006 at 7:20pm. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- KENNARD SUBDIVISION:
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Mike Kennard, Mr. Steve Michaud
The Chair called the public hearing to order at 9:05pm.
Mr. Michaud said that he did not have 911 numbers yet and he was waiting for the lawyers so he did not have copies of the deeds which had been requested by the Planning Board available. He explained the Kennard subdivision plan. He said that he had the Department of Environmental Services permit for a wetlands crossing and he had a letter about phasing. He said that he also had a certificate of monumentation installation. Mr. Seaverns asked if some markings indicating wetlands could be put on the plan. Mr. Smith read the letter from the Fire Department. The letter stated that the proposed subdivision had a water supply that met the required criteria. He asked whether a sprinkler system needed to be installed in any houses built. Mr. Seaverns said that the property met the town requirements and
sprinklers did not need to be installed. Mr. Smith read the list of items that the Planning Board had previously stated needed to be changed or added to the plan. Mr. Seaverns discussed soil disturbance. Ms. Copeland said that part of this property lay in the wetlands and she said that she had a problem understanding where the wetlands were because they were not marked on the plan. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the wetland conservation area could be delineated on the plan. Mr. Michaud said that he felt that would be misleading because of flood zones. Mr. Seaverns said that the FEMA flood map was a guide for the town.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the Kennard subdivision application until June 7, 2006 at 7:25pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
ALTERNATE:
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board appoint Scott Curry as an alternate. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
PLANNER DISCUSSION:
At 9:50pm the Board started a discussion with Cynthia Copeland from the Strafford Regional Planning Commission.
Ms. Bonser asked who Ms. Copeland had in mind for the Nottingham part time planner position. Ms. Copeland said that she was thinking about Michelle Beauchamp. She said that Ms. Beauchamp had good references. She said that since she was a certified planner she could sign off on Ms. Beauchamp's work. She said that Ms. Beauchamp knew local planning because she had been Planning Board Secretary in Milton for a long time and she said that Ms. Beauchamp could get mentoring and peer review because she worked for Strafford Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Curry asked if there were circumstances where SRPC would charge them for having both Ms. Copeland and Ms. Beauchamp work on an application. Ms. Copeland said that would only happen in a large case like USA Springs. She said that if her help was needed on
something she was previously familiar with she could do it instead of Ms. Beauchamp. She said that there was a planner code of ethics and she said that mentoring was very important. She said that she was taking her role as mentor of Ms. Beauchamp very seriously. Mr. Smith said that Nottingham was looking for someone to review the applications they received and to look at their ordinances. Mr. Seaverns asked how Nottingham was going to do what they needed to do. Mr. Curry asked what exactly the Planning Board wanted Ms. Beauchamp to do. Ms. Beauchamp offered to find job descriptions of planners in other towns. Ms. Copeland asked about the priorities of the Planning Board. Mr. Curry said that he thought the priorities had been 1)Reviewing the Regulations, 2) Checklist Items, 3) Office Organization. Mr. Gylfphe said that the checklist did not always match the regulations. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought the Planning Board
should set up one meeting per month to accept or reject applications. He said that the Lot Line Adjustment applications could be done differently from the subdivision applications if the Board wanted. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board decided what was a complete application. Ms. Bonser said that if the Board was only going to accept or reject applications once a month than they would need a cut off date for the last day they would accept applications for that date. Mr. Seaverns said that he would work on cut off dates. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board should work on their methods of procedure. Mr. Smith asked about preliminary review. Mr. Seaverns said that people who did not have paperwork should be able to come before the Planning Board whenever they wanted. Mr. Smith said that he would like for the Planning Board to have a workshop with the Building Inspector. Ms. Copeland talked about setting up escrow accounts
and she said that it was hard for her to figure out in advance how much money something would cost for her to review. Mr. Smith asked if the list done by the planner would go back to the applicant so they would have time to get missing items before the accept or reject hearing. Mr. Seaverns said no. He said that the applicant should get one shot and the Planning Board would either accept or reject the application as complete and if they chose to reject it the applicant would have to bring in a revised application for the next month's accept or reject hearing. He said that the process needed to be complete. Mr. Curry noted that these things were not always black and white.
The Planning Board decided to schedule a workshop to continue to discuss the matter of the planner on May 24, 2006 from 7:00-9:00pm.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:40pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
