NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 16, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD AUGUST 30, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Scott Curry (Alternate)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Charles Brown, Town Administrator
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. Seaverns made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of August 9, 2006 as written. Ms. Mills 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 Mr. Curry to sit for Ms. Jones.
GERRIOR DRIVE:
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Bob Shields, Mr. Sean Malone
The Chair opened discussion about Gerrior Drive at 7:15pm.
Mr. Smith asked if there was still an outstanding bill from Rockingham County Conservation District. Mr. Malone said no. Mr. Brown confirmed that the outstanding bill had been cleared up. Mr. Malone said it was his understanding that the Planning Board wanted a schedule of what was taking place in the construction of the development. He said that the telephone poles in the driving area were gone now. He also gave the Board copies of a schedule of construction for finishing the roadway. He said that they would be putting down gravel the following week. He said that they would pave the road when the Rockingham County Conservation District approved it. He said that hopefully they would be able to do the paving during the first week in September. He said that the granite bounds were scheduled
to be installed during the last week in September. Mr. Smith noted that the developer might not need to renew their letter of credit. Ms. Bonser asked when the letter of credit expired. Mr. Smith said that the letter expired in mid October. Ms. Bonser said that she felt they were cutting it close. She said that she would feel more comfortable if the letter of credit were extended 30 days. Mr. Malone said that they should be done with their roadway 30 days before their letter of credit was set to expire. Mr. Curry asked if it would cost the developer money for their letter of credit to be extended by 30 days. Mr. Malone said that it would cost the developer money. Mr. Curry said that he would be comfortable with scheduling the Gerrior people to come before another Planning Board meeting at the end of September. He said that the developer could let the Planning Board know at that time whether they expected to be ready before
the expiration of their letter of credit. Mr. Smith suggested that the Gerrior Drive discussion be scheduled for September 20, 2006. Mr. Malone asked whether a maintenance bond would be required when the road was complete. Mr. Seaverns noted that the subdivision would have one phase in Nottingham. He said that vehicles would come into the subdivision on Route 4. He said that he believed a maintenance bond should be required. He said that the developer should ask Rockingham County Conservation District what would be appropriate. Mr. Malone said that Barrington required a maintenance bond of 20% of the total amount of the road cost. Ms. Beauchamp asked if it would be possible to get separate letters of credit for Nottingham and Barrington regarding paying for the road. Mr. Malone said that he would have to ask the bank about that. Mr. Wright asked if Rockingham County Conservation District inspected in Barrington. Mr.
Malone said no. He said that Barrington had their own inspectors. Mr. Shields said that he was concerned about the Barrington requirement for a maintenance bond of 20% of the total amount for the roads. He said that if Nottingham wanted them to get a maintenance bond than they would have 2 bonds on one road. He said that Barrington wanted a maintenance bond for the Nottingham road. Mr. Seaverns said that the Town of Nottingham should be able to pull a separate maintenance bond. Mr. Malone said that the developer would talk to their bank and their legal counsel and they would bring back a draft copy of a maintenance bond. Ms. Bonser asked for the developer to try and get the draft to the Planning Board in advance of the meeting so they could review it in advance. Mr. Malone said that he had a final question. He said that on lot #35 the developer would be looking for a final inspection and a certificate of occupancy in September. Ms. Bonser said that it was her
understanding that certificates of occupancy would not be issued until the road was done. Mr. Seaverns said that in order for certificates of occupancy to be issued the road needed to meet specifications. He said that the developer should ask Rockingham County Conservation District whether their road met specifications. Mr. Malone noted that he had brought in the final plans for the development. He said that he had made the changes which had been requested by Ed Minnick.
Mr. Curry made a motion to continue discussion about Gerrior Drive until September 20, 2006 at 7:15pm. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- HORSEPLAY TRUST:
The Chair opened the hearing for Horseplay Trust at 7:45pm.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Peter Landry, Mr. Whitney Scott
Mr. Landry said that this land was on the southwest side of Garland Road. He said that he was filling in because the applicant's surveyor, Mr. Doug Wollmar couldn't be at the meeting and he was familiar with the project. He said that this project had been going on for many years and the applicant had subdivided a large parcel of land into multiple lots. He said that the final piece was 5.4 acres of land and they wanted to split it into two pieces. He said that each piece contained the minimum frontage, the required contiguous uplands and a suitable house location. He said that the project had state subdivision approval and he would add a note to the plan with the state subdivision approval number on it. He said that the applicant had done an impact statement. He said that the Board had also granted a
waiver for the full topography in the past during earlier hearings for subdivision on this land. He said that the applicant had made contact with the Fire Department but they had not received a response yet. He noted that these were the final two lots in this subdivision. Mr. Scott said that only one driveway permit had been applied for. He said that the other driveway was existing. Mr. Landry said that he should add a dedication reference to the plan because the applicant had given some land to the town earlier in the project. He said that he would make some other corrections to the plan as well. He said that the Planning Board had done a site walk in the past on some of the previous lots. He said that new granite bounds had been set. Ms. Beauchamp said that the scale needed to be 1/50 and this scale was 1/60. She also said that any waivers which had been previously granted for other subdivisions on Mr. Scott's land
needed to be forgotten and granted again since this was a different application. Mr. Landry said that the plan fit on the paper with the scale of 1/60. He also said that the previous plans had the 1/60 scale and they wanted to be consistent. He said that when they had started this project they had a large enough piece of land that the 1/50 scale was not required so they had not needed to ask for a waiver regarding their plan scale. Mr. Mike Russo said that he lived on Garland Road. He asked whether the driveway would come up the existing woods drive. Mr. Landry said yes. Ms. Charlene Anderson asked whether there would be any wetlands impact from this project. Mr. Landry said no. He said that there was a wildlife buffer. Mr. Seaverns noted that a covenant existed for the back land. He noted that the plan needed to have a driveway and the driveway drawn on the plan was the existing driveway. Mr. Smith asked where
the curb cut was. Mr. Landry said that it was in the corner of the plan. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the applicant would need culverts. Mr. Scott said that the land had an existing slope. He said that it should be up to the Building Inspector and the Road Agent to decide whether culverts were necessary. He said that the Building Inspector would tell him if he needed culverts when he asked for certificates of occupancy. He said that culverts would be a theoretical matter at this point since nothing was built yet. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board needed to determine if the lot was buildable. He noted that there could not be any wetlands in the driveway area. Mr. Landry asked if they needed to get a permit for the existing driveway. Ms. Beauchamp said that the applicant needed to turn in their waiver requests in order for their application to be complete. Mr. Smith said that the applicant needed a full topography
waiver. He said that a topography waiver had been approved in 2005 during a previous project but they needed another one. He said that the applicant also needed a waiver for their scale since it was supposed to be 1/50. He also wondered whether the applicant needed a waiver for natural features. Mr. Curry suggested that the applicant might need a cistern waiver. Mr. Smith said that since the Board had not gotten a letter from the Fire Department yet, a cistern waiver would be premature. Mr. Seaverns asked if it would solve the natural features problem if a note was added to the plan saying that the entire area was wooded.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board accept the waiver request for plat details because the applicant used the different scale to show consistency with previous applications where a waiver had not been required because of the size of the land and that the Planning Board accept the request for a full topography waiver because of shoreland protection, covenant protection and unbuildable area. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the Horseplay Trust subdivision application as complete. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion.
Mr. Curry said that he was looking for more feedback on impact statements. He said that he thought the Planning Board should ask the applicants to explain why something does not apply or why there is no impact. He said that this concern was not directed at Mr. Scott but at impact statements in general.
Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Bonser, Ms. Mills, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Harding voted in favor of the motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Curry voted against the motion. The motion passed 6-1.
Mr. Landry asked who would be responsible for talking to the Fire Department to make sure they got a response. Ms. Beauchamp said that she would do it.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to recess the Horseplay Trust subdivision application until 7:45pm on September 6, 2006. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF LONDONDERRY:
The Board called the hearing for Concrete Products of Londonderry to order at 9:00pm.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Greg Stratis, Operations Manager of Concrete Products of Londonderry
Mr. Stratis said that his company wanted to build a 1,400 square foot addition to their facility. He said that they had equipment which was outdoors and they wanted to put it inside. He said that they also wanted to put a sign on Route 4 and they wanted to do some paving on the end of the driveway. He said that the existing building was 5,000 square feet. He said that the company had another location in Amesbury, MA and they wanted to mimic the sign that they used in that location. He said that the company did not have any sign in Nottingham at all. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Stratis would need to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a waiver to get the sign. He said that there were two sign ordinanances in the regulations and the stricter ordinance needed to apply but he said that the Planning
Board had meant for the stricter ordinance to be taken out of the regulations. He said that the Planning Board would write a letter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment explaining that the stricter sign ordinance remaining in the regulations was an error. Mr. Wright said that the existing building size needed to be on the plan. He also said that the plan needed more signature lines. Mr. Stratis said that there were only 4 employees at the plant. He said that the addition would only house equipment and the company would not be building a sales office. Mr. Seaverns asked if the company was remaining the same and the only difference would be more space in the building. Mr. Stratis said that was correct. Mr. Wright asked if there were loading docks. Mr. Stratis said no. He also addressed Ms. Beauchamp's review of his application. He said that he did not have an impact statement but he explained the reasons for the addition. He presented the Board with a waiver for the
contours. He said that he had put a 20ft radius from the addition on the plan. He said that there was no proposed parking area. He said that they planned to use the existing parking area. He said that the property was not within the flood zone. He said that he was not going to put in pedestrian walkways. Mr. Seaverns said that he did not think Concrete Products of Londonderry should have to have a waiver for not putting in pedestrian walkways because they did not have those and they would not make any sense in that situation. Ms. Beauchamp said that provision was not worded correctly in the regulations. Mr. Seaverns asked if an applicant needed a waiver for one of the provisions such as pedestrian walkways or landscaping whether they would need a waiver for all 24 of the provisions.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion stating that because Concrete Products of Londonderry was using an existing facility and they were not changing their use, just increasing their building size, requesting waivers for the items in Section 70 of the regulations would not be appropriate. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Stratis said that he had a copy of the deed and he had an authorization letter from his wife because she was the actual owner of the company. Ms. Beauchamp said that the deed for the shared driveway should be referenced on the plan. Mr. Curry asked if there were cisterns in the area. Mr. Stratis said that the closest cistern was on Freeman Hall Road but he didn't know what the distance of that was from the property. Mr. Gylfphe asked if the building included sprinklers. Mr. Stratis said no. Ms. Beauchamp said that Mr. Stratis needed to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment about his request for a sign. Mr. Wright said that the Planning Board might want to consider a conditional approval in this case.
Mr. Curry made a motion to accept this application as complete. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Smith asked if fire protection would be regulated by the commercial building code. Ms. Bonser said yes. Mr. Brown asked if this addition had already been built. Mr. Stratis said yes.
Mr. Smith opened the compliance portion of the hearing at 9:40pm.
Members of the Conservation Commission said that they wanted the berm on the property seeded to prevent erosion. They said that erosion was a concern because of the steep slope. They said that they were also concerned because the area where the applicant wanted to pave would increase the liklihood of runoff from Route 4. They said that they were not sure what could be used for protection against that but they suggested possibly swale or vegetation. Mr. Stratis said that the company wanted to do the paving because it was difficult for vehicles to enter and leave. Mr. Gylfphe suggested that Mr. Stratis check with UNH and ask them about permeable asphalt. One of the abutters to the property said that there needed to be a little break down lane for people going into the property. He said that there was a
sharp corner. Mr. Stratis said that the opening for their driveway on Route 4 was a wide one. Mr. Smith said that he was not sure how much authority the Planning Board had for existing use. Ms. Bonser asked if there had ever been an incident at the Concrete Products of Londonderry driveway. Mr. Stratis said no. Ms. Anderson asked that the Planning Board have the Conservation Commission do a review and a site walk before their final approval. She said that this particular company had an environmental violation in the past at their location in Amesbury. Mr. Stratis said that the wetlands in Amesbury had been filled by a previous owner of the company. He said that his wife had bought the company 6 years earlier and they had used the existing area which had included the filled in wetlands area but they had eventually taken the filling out of the wetlands. Mr. Russo said that he had a comment regarding the hours of operation for the
company. He said that trucks did start at Concrete Products of Londonderry at 4:30 or 5:00am. Mr. Stratis said that his hours of operation were usually between 5:00am and 2:00pm. The Board said that they would discuss that further at the next hearing.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the hearing for the application of Concrete Products of Londonderry until September 20, 2006 at 7:30pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
OTHER:
At 9:55pm the Chair opened discussion with Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown said that he wanted to talk to the Planning Board about some issues which needed clarification. He said that he was impressed with the work of Ms. Beauchamp and he said that she seemed knowledgeable and thorough. He said that there was a question about whether the addresses for abutter notices needed to be checked. Ms. Beauchamp said that two letters could be sent, one to the address given by the applicant and the other to the address on file in the office of the Selectmen. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Office could just do the abutter lists. Ms. Bonser said that the office should check the lists done by the applicant and make changes as necessary. Ms. Beauchamp said that if the Planning Board wanted their office to check the addresses it would be a better idea for them to mail two letters. Ms. Bonser said that the planning staff could check the abutter lists and if there was a problem they could notify the applicant and send out another letter. Mr. Seaverns
said that there should be multiples of the blotter book and it should be in the Planning Board office and there should be a date on it. Mr. Russo suggested that the proper procedures should be posted so someone could come in to the office and know how to look up their abutters. He also suggested that a networkable copier might help. He said that he would be glad to pay to have someone else do his abutter list. Ms. Mills said that she was concerned about staff time and Planning Board liability if someone wasn't notified correctly.
Mr. Brown said that the Planning Board should review all recommendations from Ms. Beauchamp before any implementation occurred. He also said that he wanted to be in the loop.
Mr. Curry asked whether Planning Board members could get town email addresses. He said that those would help them protect themselves if there was ever a problem with a lawsuit. Mr. Brown said that he have to get more information before he could answer that.
Mr. Smith said that the developers of the Highlands were supposed to create 2 vernal pools. He asked how the Planning Board would know if they had done that. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board could write a letter to the developers of the Highlands asking them to please provide evidence that the vernal pools had been created.
Mr. Gylfphe left the meeting at 10:40pm.
A member of the Conservation Commission noted that they were only allowed to look at wetlands but they said that some towns were giving more jurisdiction to their Conservation Commissions. Ms. Beauchamp said that she thought the Conservation Commission should see everything.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn at 10:50pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
