NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 30, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Charles Brown, Town Administrator
Mr. Richard Ladd
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Tim Roache, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
TAPE RECORDING MEMO:
Mr. Brown presented the Planning Board with a memo. It stated that Ms. Tivnan would no longer be taking the minutes for the Planning Board and it explained that Ms. Chauvey was willing to take on the job if she was able to tape record the meetings. He said that everyone who he had interviewed for this position over the past few years had asked if the meetings could be recorded. He said that the recording would just be used as a tool for the secretary to type the minutes. Ms. Bonser said that Ms. Chauvey might just feel a little overwhelmed at first and Ms. Bonser suggested that Ms. Chauvey might only want to record the meetings on a temporary basis. Mr. Gylfphe said that it would need to be made clear that the tapes would not be an official record of the meetings. Mr. Seaverns said that if there were
multiple tapes for any reason than he would not agree with allowing the meetings to be tape recorded. Ms. Bonser said that there should only be one tape and they should record over it every week.
Ms. Bonser moved the motion suggested by Mr. Brown which would allow the meetings to be tape recorded. Ms. Jones seconded the motion.
Mr. Seaverns said that this should be included as a part of the rules and regulations. He suggested a motion stating the following: "to allow the new recording secretary to use the tapes for transcription on a temporary basis to produce the draft minutes." He explained how in the past there had been a box of tapes in the office and there had been dates on them and then when a tape was needed, they pulled one out and recorded over it so he said that someone had looked through them and there had been holes. He said that he did not want to go through that again. He asked how they could assure that the tapes were not public record. He said that the tapes could be used in court as long as they existed. Ms. Mills asked when the tapes would be destroyed. Ms. Bonser said that they should be
destroyed immediately. Mr. Gylfphe suggested that the tapes be destroyed after the minutes were approved. Ms. Mills said that the tapes should be destroyed once the official minutes were prepared. Mr. Seaverns asked if the Planning Board could state that the tapes would only be used "in addition
to taking notes. "Mr. Curry noted that if the tapes were destroyed prior to the approval of the minutes then a Board member would not have any historical information to use when they suggested an amendment to the minutes.
Ms. Bonser made the motion as amended to state, “To allow the new Recording Secretary to use a tape recorder or other devise of the Secretary’s choosing, to aid in the accurate transcription and approval of Planning Board meeting minutes. The sole intent of any recording is for transcription purposes only, and is not intended to be part of the official record. Any recordings will be erased or recorded over after transcription. This motion shall be reevaluated and added to Rules of Procedure.” Ms. Jones seconded that motion. The members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-CHECKLIST:
The Chair opened the public hearing about the regulations at 7:30pm.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to remove Enclosure #1, Enclosure #2 (Subdivision Review Checklist), Enclosure #3 (Subdivision Impact Assessment Form), and under Section IIIC, the words “items in Enclosure (2) I.B-F” from the regulations. Mr. Harding seconded the motion.
Mr. Seaverns said that the titles of the enclosures needed to be changed from the notice. Mr. Smith said that the titles just specified the enclosures. Ms. Beauchamp said that changing the titles would just be a clarification. Mr. Seaverns noted that the intent of the motion had not changed.
Mr. Gylfphe amended his motion to reflect the correct titles. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. The members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
QUESTION:
Mr. Smith asked the Planning Board attorney, John Teague whether Mr. Curry could sit in nonpublic session as a Planning Board alternate. Mr. Teague said that Mr. Curry could certainly be invited to sit during nonpublic.
TIM ROACHE:
Mr. Roache said that he had come in front of the Planning Board about 3 years earlier. He said that he wanted to talk about access management. He said that all of the Planning Commissions in the state had worked on this. He said that there was a misconception that the Planning Boards did not have say in what the Department of Transportation approved. Ms. Bonser said that was because the applicants went directly to the Department of Transportation for their permits. Mr. Roache said that Strafford Regional Planning Commission as well as the other state planning commissions wanted to work on the communication issues between the Planning Boards and the Department of Transportation. He said that they wanted to work on a memorandum of understanding that would give Planning Boards formal recourse against the
scenario of people going to the Department of Transportation first. He said that the town needed to develop an access management plan. He said that he and the Department of Transportation were looking for feedback from the Board on the draft access management plan. He said that the draft document would need to be refined and all the parties involved would need to approve it. He said that the goal was to reduce the conflict points on the roadways. He said that this would focus on commercial development rather than residential development. He said that this memorandum of understanding would be most applicable on Route 4, Route 152 and Route 156 but he said that it could apply to all state highways in order to cover the needs of the town. Mr. Curry noted article 4, section 4 of the proposed memorandum of understanding and asked when the Planning Board would be able to ask questions of the Department of Transportation. Mr. Roache noted
page 9 of the draft access management plan. He said that the town could make recommendations to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Transportation had said that they would stand by the town policy. He said that this document had not been challenged in court. He said that according to the New Hampshire Attorney General the document would hold up in court but he said that a court challenge might be an issue at some point. Mr. Seaverns noted that page 9 in the draft access management plan was not reflected in the proposed memorandum of understanding. He said that the implementation strategies more accurately reflected what was currently done by the Planning Board. Mr. Roache said that the strategies would give the Board "teeth" if they were a part of the site plan regulations. Mr. Teague noted the language and said that "shall not conflict" was different from "consistent with." Mr.
Seaverns noted that the New Hampshire Attorney General had written the language. Mr. Roache agreed. He said that many towns had their attorneys look at the memorandum of understanding document.
Ms. Jones made a motion to have the draft memorandum of understanding reviewed by the town attorney. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion.
Mr. Seaverns said that he thought that was premature. He said that there should be a draft memorandum of understanding that worked for the entire region which was presented by the Strafford Regional Planning Commission. He said that until that point there would be lots of drafts and he did not think the attorney should have to look at each one. Ms. Bonser said that the final document should be reviewed by the attorney.
Ms. Jones, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith, Mr. Harding, and Mr. Gylfphe voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Seaverns and Ms. Mills voted against the motion. The motion passed 5-2.
Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board needed time to talk about these proposed documents. Ms. Jones said that she needed time to read the documents fully. Mr. Roache said that the Board could certainly discuss their thoughts with Ms. Beauchamp and he would talk to her about it and make any changes as necessary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board opened discussion on the minutes at 8:10pm.
Ms. Bonser made the motion that the Planning Board approve the minutes from August 16, 2006. Ms. Jones seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
RCCD LETTER:
Mr. Smith read out loud the latest report from Rockingham County Conservation District about the Homestead subdivision.
CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF LONDONDERRY DISCUSSION:
Ms. Tivnan asked the Planning Board to review the draft memo she had written from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Adjustment regarding the sign application from Concrete Products of Londonderry. Mr. Smith read the draft memo out loud. Ms. Bonser said that she did not think Mr. Stratis should be charged for going in front of the ZBA. She said that she would like to recommend the fees for the ZBA hearing be waived because his application had been the result of a Planning Board error. Ms. Beauchamp said that Mr. Stratis could have waited until March to put up the sign. She said that the town had already paid for the ZBA notice to go into the newspaper. Attorney Teague asked whether the intent of the voters had been clear. He said that the problem in this situation was that the two sign
ordinances in the regulations were not totally inconsistent with each other. He said that Mr. Stratis should have to pay for the ZBA application since he was choosing to go that route. Mr. Seaverns asked if the memo should specifically name the applicant or if it should be generic. Attorney Teague asked whether the ZBA could state that it was the intent of the voters to accept J as the sign ordinance. He asked if there was a waiver or a special exception clause. He asked what the ZBA could do with this application. He said that the Planning Board should declare that the old ordinance still being in the book was a clerical error and state that they would correct the ambiguity. He said that the Planning Board did have the right to interpret the regulations in this manner. It was understood that all ZBA fees paid on behalf of Concrete Products of Londonderry would be reimbursed and that the abutters would be notified at the
Town’s expense. Ms. Beauchamp disagreed with Attorney Teague’s interpretation.
Mr. Smith made a motion that the Planning Board declare this a clerical error and delete anything existing prior to the election regarding signs including 3A1B3, 3A2B3, 3C5B and the part of 3C4 which begins, "which has not more than one unlit sign...". Ms. Jones seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Board would need to send a notice to Concrete Products of Londonderry and to the abutters which had already been notified of the ZBA hearing.
CLARIFICATION QUESTION:
Mr. Ladd said that he would like clarification of the buildable areas on a lot. He noted that the Planning Board always put the 50-ft setbacks within the 200x200 square feet of buildable area. Mr. Smith said that the developer could not use the 60,000 square feet of buildable area if it necked. Ms. Beauchamp read the definitions of buildable area and setbacks in the regulations. Mr. Seaverns said that there was a difference between building setbacks and buildable area. He said that leach fields and other things could be built in the setbacks because they were not a part of the building setback requirements. Ms. Beauchamp said that the Planning Board needed to change their definitions of buildable area and setbacks. She said that she did not like the way that the Planning Board interpreted their
current definitions.
RESIGNATION:
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to regretfully accept the resignation of Ms. Tivnan as Planning Board Secretary. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00pm. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
