NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD JULY 5, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Mark Harding
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. David Wright, Economic Development Director
Mr. Charles Brown, Town Administrator
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ms. Bonser made a motion that the Board wait to approve the minutes until the end of the meeting. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-REDDY HOMES:
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Bill Reddy
Mr. Reddy explained that he had mistakenly built 2.5 to 3ft too close to the lot line on his Lot #17. He said that his Lot #18 had nothing on it and he owned both lot #17 and lot #18. He said that he just wanted to move the line 3ft so his building wouldn't be too close to the line. Ms. Bonser asked whether the granite bounds would have to be moved. Mr. Reddy said no. He said that those would stay in the same spot. Mr. Seaverns asked if this change would affect the lines for conservation easements. Mr. Reddy said no.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to accept and approve the Lot Line Adjustment application for Bill Reddy. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
NONPUBLIC:
Mr. Brown said that he needed to speak to the Planning Board in nonpublic session.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to go into nonpublic session according to RSA91A 3IIE at 7:30pm. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
The Planning Board remained in nonpublic session for approximately 20 minutes.
At the conclusion of nonpublic session Ms. Bonser made a motion that what had been discussed in nonpublic session should remain in nonpublic session. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION OF CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF LONDONDERRY:
Mr. Smith read out loud a memo from the Building Inspector regarding an addition that had been built on to the Concrete Products of Londonderry building. The memo noted that according to Building Inspector records no site plan or building permits had been issued for the project. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board should request a site plan review. He said that the Board of Selectmen were responsible for enforcement. He said that the fine for not having a building permit was $100 per day. Ms. Bonser said that the Board of Selectmen could start the process. Mr. Seaverns said that if there was no site plan review than Concrete Products of Londonderry needed to come before the Planning Board. Mr. Smith suggested that the letter from the Board of Selectmen include a 10 day time limit.
REVIEW OF MILL POND MAINTENANCE PLAN:
The Board looked at the plan for Mill Pond Maintenance and noted that the new ice cream store was currently in that location. Mr. Seaverns said that the approved plan had parking for 2 visitors (or customers) and 10 office staff (or employees). He said that the ice cream shop had more than 2 customer cars parked there and he did not know how many employees they had. He said that there had not been a deceleration lane required for Mill Pond Maintenance because it was not a retail business but he said that with an ice cream shop there should be a deceleration lane. He said that the lights and the signs for the ice cream shop should be in accordance with the regulations. He said that a number of violations exist.
CONFLICTS BETWEEN APPLICANT AND PLANNING BOARD:
Mr. Seaverns showed the Planning Board the language he had come up with regarding applicants who sue the Planning Board while their case is still in front of the Planning Board. Ms. Bonser said that she liked the language Mr. Seaverns had suggested but she said that the Planning Board should ask their attorney about it. She said that the Planning Board needed to ask about the 30 day clock. Mr. Wright asked if there was any case law saying that a Planning Board could go back and change their approval of a plan to a denial. Mr. Smith said no. Mr. Wright suggested that the Planning Board could deny such applications until the resolution of the lawsuit. Mr. Seaverns said that he didn't think the Planning Board should be judgemental regarding the suit and he said he thought that a denial would make it seem like
they were being judgemental. Mr. Smith suggested that the Planning Board could recess the application until the resolution of the lawsuit instead of tabling it. Ms. Mills said that she thought the language was very good and something the Planning Board should have. Mr. Smith said that this might be more of an issue if the Board started putting conditions on plans. Mr. Seaverns said that all the applicant needed to sue the Planning Board was some type of decision. He said that it did not need to be a final decision, it just needed to be a decision of some kind. Ms. Beauchamp said that she did not see tabling a case as a denial. Mr. Seaverns said that he did not either but he said that according to the courts tabling a case effectively denied it. Mr. Wright suggested that the Planning Board could table their hearing until a date certain. Mr. Seaverns said that he did not know what that would do if the matter remained unresolved. The Board talked extensively about the 30 day
clock and what would happen if they were not granted an extension from the applicant until the lawsuit had been resolved.
TOWN PLANNER CONTRACT:
Mr. Smith asked who would sign the town planner contract with Strafford Regional Planning Commission. Ms. Bonser said that it would be the Planning Board Chair.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to have the Planning Board approve the services agreement with Strafford Regional Planning Commission and to have either Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown or both if necessary sign the agreement. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board approve the minutes from the meeting of March 15, 2006. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith and Ms. Bonser voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Ms. Mills, and Mr. Harding abstained from the motion. The motion passed 3-0 with 3 abstentions.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of June 14, 2006 with corrections. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
CLARK DRIVEWAY PERMIT:
Mr. Smith read the Clark Driveway permit out loud. Mr. Seaverns noted that this lot was over 5 acres. He asked if the Clarks needed to come back before the Planning Board with amended plans reflecting what they currently had. He said that if the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved the Clark case than he thought an application showing the new conditions of the lot should come before the Planning Board. Ms. Beauchamp said that there should be someone from the Planning Board on the Zoning Board of Adjustments or vice versa and she said that the Conservation Commission should review all plans that went in front of the Planning Board. She said that the town department heads should also review all plans that went in front of the Planning Board.
GOGAS/BRADY:
The Planning Board Secretary asked a question about a call she had received. It involved whether a civil suit between neighbors which had resulted in a lot line adjustment needed to go in front of the Planning Board. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought surveyors should submit the new plan. Ms. Bonser wondered whether they should ask their lawyer. Ms. Beauchamp said that she would look at the court decision.
RCCD LETTER:
Mr. Smith read out loud the latest letter the Planning Board had received from RCCD. Ms. Bonser discussed Certificates of Occupancy, Alan Garland and the Department of Transportation. She gave copies of the letter to the Building Inspector and the Town Administrator. Mr. Seaverns discussed under drain design and he said that he did not understand what the letter wanted the Planning Board to do. He said that he would call RCCD.
JULY 3RD:
There were no objections to the Planning Board Secretary taking the day off on July 3, 2006.
LETTERS OF CREDIT:
Mr. Seaverns said that the letters of credit needed to be updated. He said that the cost of gravel had gone up. He explained the letters of credit and he said that he would like them to be reviewed annually but he said that they did not have the funds to pay for updates to the letters of credit. Ms. Bonser said that she thought it was a good idea to have the letters of credit be reviewed annually. Mr. Seaverns said that he would really like to have all the letters of credit reviewed. Mr. Smith asked if that could be billed to the applicants. Mr. Seaverns said that he did not know. Mr. Smith said that he thought the cost of review should be billed to the applicants. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the letters of credit had expiration dates. Mr. Seaverns said yes. Ms. Beauchamp said that there
should be a log in the Planning Board office. She said that she thought having a review of the letters of credit was a great idea. Ms. Bonser noted that the letter of credit for the Highlands had expired. She asked if the Planning Board should make an appointment for a representative from Highlands to come before them. Mr. Seaverns said that he would write to the Board of Selectmen's office and say that the Highlands letter of credit had expired and ask them to please address that with the bank or the applicant. He said that could also be forwarded to RCCD.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting about 10:00pm. 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
| 
