NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD AUGUST 16, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. David Smith, Chair Mr. Mark Harding
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Skip Seaverns
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. David Wright, Economic Development Director
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes from July 26, 2006. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Bonser, Ms. Mills and Mr. Seaverns voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Smith voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-1.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes from August 2, 2006. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
OTHER:
Ms. Beauchamp said that within 30 days the Gatchell application should be revoked by Northwood. Mr. Seaverns said that when the Planning Board got notice from Northwood they should write a letter to Mr. Gatchell reiterating the conditions. Mr. Smith noted that the Nottingham portion of the project was no longer viable because of the Northwood decision. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board should let Mr. Gatchell know that they were on the same page as Northwood. He said that none of the properties in Nottingham had frontage problems. He also discussed private roads versus public roads.
Ms. Bonser asked if the Nottingham Planning Board wanted to think about enacting regulations that would create a maximum square footage for buildings in Nottingham. Mr. Wright said that it might be a better idea for the Planning Board to put something in their zoning regulations prohibiting large commercial buildings as opposed to just large buildings. Ms. Bonser said that she wanted to stay true to the vision of the town outlined in the Master Plan. Mr. Seaverns said that the Master Plan tried to define Nottingham as the agricultural center of Rockingham County. Ms. Bonser said that the people of Nottingham wanted to maintain the small town feel. Ms. Mills suggested that Nottingham could require buildings to be built looking like the ones around them. Mr. Seaverns noted that would be
something like a village district. Mr. Smith suggested that the Planning Board could possibly limit the parking area instead of the building size. He suggested that would have a similar effect. Mr. Seaverns agreed. He noted that there were laws where there needed to be certain percentages of parking spaces for different people that would be expected to come in and out of the building. Ms. Mills said that the Planning Board needed to be proactive and decide how they wanted Route 4 to look. She said that she could see the build up of the surrounding areas coming into Nottingham. Mr. Wright said that the Planning Board should enact actual commercial zoning. Ms. Bonser said that the areas they would most have to be concerned about were on Route 4, Route 156 and Route 152. Mr. Smith read out loud what the Master Plan said about Route 4. Mr. Seaverns said that the intent of what was written in the Master Plan was to promote
efficient traffic flow on Route 4.
Ms. Beauchamp said that the lighting ordinance was in the Zoning Ordinance twice. She also discussed free standing signs and asked whether it was normal for the town to put the entire proposed ordinance changes on the ballot. Ms. Bonser said yes. Mr. Seaverns said that they had done both in the past.
Ms. Beauchamp brought up the checklists she had done for her proposed application. Mr. Smith said that if he were coming in off the street he did not think that he would know the difference between completeness and compliance. Mr. Seaverns said that the application needed a process flow chart. Ms. Beauchamp said that there were things in the zoning requirements that they needed to meet for completeness. Mr. Smith asked why they needed 3 additional copies. Ms. Beauchamp said that it was in the requirements. Mr. Seaverns suggested that the Planning Board needed one copy for the file and 3 copies for their perusal. Ms. Beauchamp said that completeness was preliminary and compliance was final. She said that in order for something to be considered complete it only needed to meet
the minimum requirements. Mr. Smith suggested breaking it down one more time into a final plat checklist. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board did not require certificates of bounds because the surveyor stamp was on the plan. Ms. Beauchamp said that bounds should not be set before the plan was accepted. Mr. Smith agreed that the bounds being set should be one of the last parts of the process. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Planning Board was going to change the subdivision regulations by making all their changes at one time. She said that it would be easier to do many changes with one hearing. Mr. Seaverns said that they needed to leave the door open to change things that were wrong. Mr. Smith said that he would like them to move things out of the checklist. He said that the Planning Board might want to have input into the driveway permits. Mr. Seaverns said that he would like to take the checklist and the application out
of the regulations. Mr. Smith said that access permits should be changed to be on the list for compliance. Mr. Gylfphe noted that the state law had things it required for completeness as well.
Mr. Gylfphe left the meeting at 8:50pm.
Mr. Seaverns said that if the checklist was separated from the subdivision regulations then the Planning Board could make changes to it without a public hearing. He said that way the Planning Board could fix the mistakes. He said that having the checklist as part of the subdivision regulations was an administrative nightmare. Ms. Mills said that she was concerned the Planning Board could get bogged down with changing the regulations to reflect the checklist. She said that they should put everything together at once.
Mr. Wright read RSA 676:4 1B which stated that the "Planning Board shall specify by regulation what is included in an application." He said that the state did not require anything for a complete application.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion that the Planning Board have a public hearing to remove enclosure 2 and section 3c paragraph 1 and 2 and the reference to enclosure 2 IB-F from the subdivision regulations and replace it with subdivision review checklist items.
Mr. Smith wondered about removing the entire paragraph from section 3A9 and section 3A3.
Mr. Seaverns said that he was looking to remove enclosure 2 and replace any reference to it with subdivision review checklist. He also suggested that the Board pull out enclosures 1, 2 and 3 and that any references to them be changed to reflect their respective titles. He said that it was an administrative nightmare to keep up to date with the town and state regulations.
Mr. Seaverns reworded his motion to state that the Planning Board have a public hearing to remove enclosures 1, 2 and 3 from the subdivision regulations and change any references to them to reflect their respective titles. Ms. Bonser seconded that motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to have the public hearing on August 30, 2006 at 7:00pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Beauchamp noted that the Planning Board members would have to sign the new document.
Mr. Seaverns said that Nottingham should send Raymond some response to their notice of regional impact. Ms. Bonser suggested that copies of the notice be put into the boxes of the department heads. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board would coordinate the responses.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to adjourn at 9:30pm. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
