NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JULY 19, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD JULY 26, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Mr. Mark Harding
Ms. Gail Mills Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Scott Curry (Alternate)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Members of the Conservation Commission
Ms. Gretchen Young, Appledore Engineering
Mr. Tom Sweeney, Nottingham Building Committee
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Heidi Carlson, Nottingham Deputy Fire Chief
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen's Representative to Building Committee
Mr. David Wright, Economic Development Director
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05pm.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Curry to sit for Ms. Jones.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to approve the nonpublic minutes from the meeting of June 21, 2006 as amended. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Ms. Mills, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Bonser voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry abstained from the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with 1 abstention.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to approve the public minutes from the meeting of July 5, 2006. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION WITH CONSERVATION COMMISSION:
The members of the Conservation Commission said that they would like to keep the dialogue open between the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. They said that they were interested in maintaining open space in town and they thought it would be a good thing if the Planning Board could revisit the idea of cluster subdivisions. They said that they would like to be invited to any discussions about this. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board did plan to discuss that. She said that Ms. Beauchamp was planning to bring that discussion before the Planning Board. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board had talked about that the previous year. He said that it would be great for the Planning Board to have input from the Conservation Commission. The members of the Conservation Commission noted that
Article 2 had passed so they felt it was important to Nottingham residents to keep the rural character of their town. Ms. Bonser said that it was important for the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission to collaborate. She said that the Conservation Commission should be given Planning Board meeting agendas.
Ms. Bonser said that the town had received a judgement from the Supreme Court about the USA Springs case. She read the court order out loud. She said that in her opinion it put a lot of responsibility back with the Planning Board.
Mr. Curry asked the Conservation Commission if they had any thoughts about their goals for open space in town. One of the Conservation Commission members commented that usually wetlands got protected by developers. They said that the wetlands were protected anyway by law so they didn't feel that the developers were making a compromise. They said that the animals needed the uplands too. They also said that some conservation lands needed to be the land that connected the big open spaces. Ms. Bonser said that the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board needed to look at how they should preserve things. She said that she was looking forward to the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission working together. She said that this would be an important time for the future of Nottingham.
Members of the Conservation Commission said that they had a window of time and they showed the Planning Board maps that they were having made with the help of the Strafford Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Seaverns noted that Nottingham had not digitized their tax maps. Ms. Bonser said that the Board of Selectmen had wanted to digitize the tax maps but they had found it to be cost prohibitive with all the other things they needed to spend money on. The Conservation Commission said that a town needed digitized tax maps in order to determine prime wetland. Mr. Seaverns said that in order to digitize the tax maps they would need a GPS locator point in town.
Mr. Seaverns asked if the Conservation Commission had a position available for a Planning Board member. The Conservation Commission said that they would look into their regulations about that. They said that they could have 7 members but they only had 5. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought it would be nice if a Planning Board member served as a representative on the Conservation Commission because that would be a permanent connection between the two groups. The Conservation Commission said that they would look at their regulations and they announced that their next scheduled meeting was on August 14, 2006 at 7:00pm.
FIRE STATION DISCUSSION:
Ms. Gretchen Young said that she was from Appledor Engineering and she showed the Planning Board the proposed plans for the proposed fire station. She said that the town had 3 acres on the south corner of Route 152 and Priest Road. She said that the proposed plans involved 2 phases, garages, parking for 4 fire trucks and an office area. She said that there would be parking for volunteers and visitors. She said that the main access to the fire station was going to be on Route 152. She said that there was plenty of sight distance. She said that there were going to be 2 signs and there was going to be a gated secondary access on Priest Road. She discussed the plans for future expansion and she talked about how work was being done to determine the site of the leech field, the propane tank and other
essentials. She said that there was an existing catch basin and they wanted to stay out of the wetlands as much as possible. Mr. Sweeney noted that there was a vernal pool on the property. Mr. Smith said that the vernal pool should be shown on the plan. Ms. Young said that a 5th year storm would only raise the pond .7 feet and a 50 year storm would only raise the pond .6 additional feet. She said that it was designed for that amount of rainfall to come over a 24 hour period. She said that their estimates had been very conservative. Mr. Sweeney said that this land would not flood. He said that the water would sink into the ground and that this land had good dirt for it to sink into. Ms. Bonser asked if they could make a larger culvert. Ms. Young said no. She said that would cause a problem. The Planning Board had further discussion about their concern that the spot might be prone to flooding or that it would be
too wet. Mr. Sweeney said that the base of the building would be 3 feet higher than they had originally planned. Ms. Beauchamp asked where the wash area for the trucks would be. Ms. Young showed that area on the plan and she said that there would be an area for the water to drain down from. Mr. Wright asked if there would be a flashing light outside the fire station. Mr. Sweeney said that was still being discussed. Mr. Seaverns asked whether the Building Committee had looked at the roof design. Mr. Sweeney said that the roof would be relatively flat and they would be using a steel building. Ms. Bonser noted that the water run off from the roof had been calculated. She asked if the station would need more parking after the planned addition had been built. Ms. Young said no. Mr. Curry said that he was still concerned about water on the site. He also said that he was concerned that according to the plan there were
not enough uplands for the building. Mr. Sweeney said that the property line had not been finalized. Mr. Seaverns noted that it was advisable for the Building Committee to come in front of the Planning Board with this project but he said that it was not required because none of the regulations applied to a government entity. Mr. Sweeney noted that there were limitations on this site but it was the only site that the town had to use for this project. He said that the proposed fire station was being considered as part of the emergency management plan. He said that they could not move the building because they were concerned about the turning radius for the trucks. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board should talk to the Conservation Commission about this. She said that she would like to hear what they had to say. Mr. Sweeney said that the Building Committee had talked to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Smith and Mr. Seaverns
made suggestions about how it might be possible to move the planned building into the setbacks. Mr. Seaverns thought that the Building Committee should make an attempt to meet the setbacks. He asked whether this project would be inspected by the Rockingham County Conservation District. Ms. Young said yes. Ms. Bonser said that the town should set an example with this project by saying that they will follow the procedures because they believe in their own project. Mr. Sweeney noted again that the town was dealing with a limited site. Ms. Young noted that moving the building in certain directions would also result in a greater expense to the town. Mr. Seaverns asked whether the roadway would be wide enough for volunteers coming in to pass trucks going out. Ms. Carlson said yes. She said that they would still have to figure out the traffic flow. Mr. Seaverns noted that more pavement would equal more impact on the wetlands. Mr. Bock said that when this was presented to the
town they would show different pictures of phase 1 and phase 2. Mr. Seaverns asked if there were any plans to pave Priest Road because of this project. Mr. Sweeney said that had been talked about. Mr. Bock noted that Route 152 would be the main access to the proposed fire station. Mr. Seaverns said that he was concerned about Route 152 flooding and it becoming necessary for emergency personnel to use Priest Road. He also asked if there was a plan for using the old fire station. Mr. Sweeney said that the Building Committee would deal with that at a later time.
ADVICE-MIKE KLUTELIS:
Mr. Klutelis said that most of his land was in Epping and he was doing a subdivision there. He said that he had received a letter from the Epping Town Planner stating that the Registry of Deeds had requested he get signatures from the Planning Boards of both towns. Mr. Seaverns cited RSA 674:3. He said that the Nottingham Planning Board was not involved with this plan and he said that he would not sign it. Ms. Beauchamp said that she would talk to the Epping Town Planner about this.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED NEW APPLICATION:
At 8:50pm Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board would discuss the application that Ms. Beauchamp had proposed for them. Mr. Seaverns asked if an applicant wanting a lot line adjustment would use this same form. Ms. Beauchamp said no. Mr. Curry noted that if the Planning Board regulations for minor subdivision became less restrictive than there could be a separate application for minor subdivisions or there could be something on the application stating that certain questions did not apply to minor subdivisions.
Ms. Bonser asked if Ms. Beauchamp would be reviewing the plans for the proposed fire station. Ms. Beauchamp said yes. Mr. Seaverns asked who would pay for that. Ms. Bonser said that the Town of Nottingham and the Board of Selectmen needed to pay for Ms. Beauchamp's review of the proposed fire station plans.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion that the Board of Selectmen know the Strafford Regional Planning Commission review and the Rockingham County Conservation District review of the proposed fire station be paid for by the Town of Nottingham. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Beauchamp noted that she would like the Planning Board to change their fee system. She said that the planning office should pay for itself through fees.
Mr. Curry made a motion to adopt the fees recommended by Ms. Beauchamp with changes to $8 per abutter and that the recording fee for the voluntary merger be eliminated.
Ms. Beauchamp explained the proposed remapping fee. She said that the tax maps needed to be changed each year and this fee would pay for that. She also explained why she did not think the town should charge a recording fee for a voluntary merger. Mr. Seaverns noted that the town did not currently charge a fee for a voluntary merger. Ms. Beauchamp said that it should stay that way.
Ms. Bonser seconded the motion.
Mr. Seaverns said that he was not sure about the idea of having people write a check to the Registry of Deeds. He was concerned that the fees might go up and he was concerned about people writing bad checks. He said that he thought they should have an escrow fund for everything. Ms. Mills said that the town should have applicants put their money in an escrow account and then the town should give the developers any remaining money when the project is complete.
The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of adopting the recommended fees with the changes. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Curry made a motion that all references to fees should be removed from the regulations. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
The Board looked at an abutter notice they had received from Northwood which stated that Northwood was holding a public hearing to discuss revoking their approval of the Gatchell subdivision.
The Planning Board Secretary told the Board that a typo had been changed on the letter of credit for Dunbarton so it was no longer scheduled to expire in 2006.
The Board had a brief discussion of the Gerrior Drive situation and noted that they needed to get money from that developer.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to adjourn at 10:30pm. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
