NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
WORKSHOP SESSION
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair (arrived @ 8:10 PM) Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Seaverns called the meeting to order at 7:15 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board opened discussion on the minutes.
Mr. Seaverns asked that the lot number change for the Clark case be noted in the minutes.
Ms. Bonser made a motion that the Planning Board approve the minutes from September 6, 2006, as amended. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe abstained. The motion passed 4-0, with one abstention.
DISCUSSION OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATON:
Mr. Seaverns opened discussion on the Subdivision Application at 7:30 PM.
Mr. Seaverns asked Ms. Beauchamp if she had received any feedback from Peter Landry on the application. Ms. Beauchamp indicated that she had not.
Mr. Seaverns explained to Mr. Gylfphe the time and effort that was expended at the last meeting on an application that was not signed and had an abutter list more than 5 days old. He stated that his goal for tonight was for Ms. Chauvey, Ms. Beauchamp and the Board members to have an understanding of what things are required of them when an application is received. He stated that he needed clarification from Ms. Beauchamp on the letters received by the Board from Strafford Regional Planning Commission. He is not sure if the issues in those letters have been researched or if that is being left up to the Board.
Ms. Seaverns noted the flow chart Ms. Beauchamp had created. He stated he felt it was a good tool that could be used by all people involved in the process.
Mr. Seaverns stated that he has an issue with the Board not having copies of the deeds like the surveyors do. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Board would rather have copies of the deeds than just the Book/Page number. Ms. Bonser said they would. Ms. Beauchamp asked if they wanted only the deed of the lot in question. Ms. Bonser stated that they would like copies of all deeds noted on the survey. Ms. Beauchamp asked if they wanted to change Page 1 of the application.
Ms. Bonser stated that if an application comes in not signed by all parties, it is to be returned immediately. All Board members agreed. Ms. Chauvey stated that sometimes the applications are received by other
departments and passed on to her. Ms. Bonser said they should be mailed back to the applicant with a letter. Ms. Beauchamp stated she felt that whatever action was to take place should take place if any requirement of the first three or four pages was not complete.
Ms. Chauvey stated that she currently has an application that was received by Mr. Colby and passed on to her today. The application is not signed and there is a mylar and check accompanying the application. Ms. Beauchamp stated no application should be dated until the first three pages have been checked. Ms. Bonser suggested Ms. Chauvey send a letter, with the application and check, to the applicant saying that we have the Mylar, and they were welcome to retrieve it during normal business hours. Ms. Mills stated she felt we could hold on to the check until the applicant decided what to do. Mr. Seaverns stated there should be nothing in the office that the Town has not taken in.
Ms. Bonser inquired about returning a Mylar without cost to the Town.
Mr. Seaverns stated that he felt since the Planning Office now has a decent amount of open hours, new applications should only be taken in during those times. Ms. Bonser agreed. Mr. Seaverns stated that when the Planning Board Secretary takes in the application, the first three pages should be checked immediately for completeness. If it is missing items, it is to be handed right back to the applicant.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to authorize the Planning Board Secretary to return an applications for failure to complete Pages 1 – 4. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Seaverns stated, again, that applications are to be taken in by the Planning Board Secretary only, and if they are mailed, they are to be opened by the Planning Board Secretary only. Ms. Bonser stated that a memo should be sent to staff telling them that no one should take in applications. Ms. Mills stated that a note should be added to the application. Ms. Beauchamp felt the memo should come from Mr. Brown. Mr. Seaverns felt it should come from the Planning Board with back up from Mr. Brown.
Mr. Seaverns stated he would like to be more specific with the land owner’s signature box. Ms. Beauchamp suggested it be changed to Each Land Owner’s Signature. All agreed.
Mr. Seaverns stated that the abutters list should not be dated more that 5 days prior to submission of the application. If it is, then the application should be returned immediately. He also wanted it noted that it was not the responsibility of the Planning Board Secretary to validate all abutters during this review process.
Mr. Seaverns mentioned that Amy, a previous Planning Board Secretary, used to make a copy of the tax map. Ms. Beauchamp suggested they add two (2) 11X17 copies of the tax map to Section 3C as a submission requirement. Mr. Seaverns asked Ms. Beauchamp if the ten copies of the plat being requested were also 10X17. Ms. Beauchamp responded they were full size. Mr. Seaverns stated that there had been talk of requesting 10X17 copies for each Board member and only one full size set for the file. He noted that if ten copies were submitted that way it would easy to add the tax map in on top of it.
Mr. Seaverns brought Mr. Smith up to speed on the meeting.
Ms. Mills inquired about whether or not the Conservation Commission has supplied any feedback on the Impact Statement. Ms. Beauchamp stated all departments received a copy, and so far, the only one to respond is Heidi Carlson of the Fire Department.
Mr. Seaverns asked Ms. Chauvey if she was clear on what she need to do to complete Box 2.2 on the flow chart. Ms. Chauvey stated she was. Mr. Seaverns noted that he would like her to put her procedures in writing so that someone else could follow them. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Ms. Chauvey had already started a book of RSA’s.
Ms. Beauchamp informed the Planning Board that Ms. Chauvey had a problem with trying to change the application deadline. She explained that the absolute last day the public notice can be posted in Foster’s is Friday. The request to Foster’s for its posting goes out on the Tuesday before. Ms. Beauchamp further explained that Ms. Chauvey backed up 21 days before the meeting date to come up with an application deadline. Mr. Seaverns confirmed that all Planning Board notices submitted to Foster’s will be published on Fridays.
Ms. Beauchamp inquired about who tracks the money brought in and if it was tracked by department. Ms. Chauvey responded the Ms. Carlson tracks the money and it is tracked by department. Ms. Beauchamp then inquired about receipts for cash payments. Mr. Seaverns asked if Ms. Chauvey would bring the receipt book to the meetings moving forward. Ms. Bonser inquired whether money was ever kept in the office. Ms. Chauvey stated that all money is immediately passed on to Ms. Carlson.
The conversation returned to the current unsigned application in the Planning Office. Ms. Beauchamp offered to call the applicant. Ms. Chauvey stated if that was the route Planning Board wanted to take, she did not mind making the call. Ms. Beauchamp noted that everyone seems to be aware of issues before the file even makes it to the Planning Board. Mr. Seaverns indicated that in such a small town there is an “open door” policy and everyone is just trying to be helpful.
Mr. Seaverns noted that based on Boxes 2.4 and 3.1-3.4 of the flow chart, it is evident that all applications will take a minimum of two meetings to reach approval. He suggested that the abutter notices state up front that discussions will not take place until the continuance meeting after acceptance of the application. Ms. Bonser stated that since information will be sent to the department heads immediately following acceptance (Box 3.3), they should be able to have comments submitted to the Board prior to the continuance. Ms. Beauchamp inquired about how long that will give the Conservation Commission to review the file. They meet once a month. Mr. Smith stated that maybe an exception should be made to give them copies prior to the acceptance. Mr. Gylfphe pointed out that if a plan has not been accepted,
then it is not a plan. The Planning Board concurred that it is possible that meeting dates for either the Conservation Commission or the Planning Board may need to be changed. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she does not recommend moving the Planning Board meetings. Ms. Beauchamp recommended that Ms. Mills check in with the Conservation Commission, as the Planning Board Representative, to see what may work best for them.
Mr. Seaverns inquired about at what point the applicant knows that future fees will be required. Ms. Beauchamp pointed out Box 3.4 on the flow chart, which states that an escrow account will be opened upon acceptance of the application for a compliance report. Mr. Seaverns suggested that at the time SRPC’s Completeness letter is sent to the applicant, an estimate of the cost of the Compliance review be included. Ms. Beauchamp inquired if an estimate should be made based on an average, since some can be much more time consuming than others.
Ms. Beauchamp explained that the public hearing should not be opened until the applicant/agent has explained the application to the Planning Board. She further explained that department heads should be allowed to enter their comments prior to the public because they may answer or address questions from the public.
Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to add something to Box 4.2. He would like it to specifically say “…comments from the department heads, abutters, and public” in that order.
Mr. Seaverns stated that he did not see how Boxes 1.1-1.3 would work unless the Town signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the other agencies. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Planning Board should be receiving documentation from the State anytime anyone applies for an application. She further stated that the Town is given 30 days to comment. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Planning Board should be looking at all driveway permits from the State. Mr. Seaverns said he felt the Planning Board would not be able to comment in most cases, because they have not received an application and do not know the plan. Ms. Beauchamp stated that someone should be contacting the applicant to inquiring about the plan so that they can comment. Mr. Seaverns stated that much of this type of mail goes to the Town Clerk and does
not make it to the Planning Department. Ms. Beauchamp agreed that that is a problem. Mr. Seaverns stated that another memo should go out on this issue.
Ms. Smith indicated he would like a different folder set up for the files. He said possibly a pocket in the front would help. Mr. Seaverns stated that maybe expanding pocket folders would be better. Ms. Chauvey said she will look into it.
OTHER BUSINESS:
There was an inquiry from Mr. Brown as to whether there were any volunteers for the Seacoast MPO TAC Team. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Economic Director would be a perfect nomination for this team. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Planning Board would send a memo to Mr. Wright regarding the request. Ms. Beauchamp stated that he would need to follow up with the Board of Selectmen to get the appointment. Mr. Seaverns stated that someone used to go, however, it was quickly realized that the roads and other items that were addressed at the meeting did not apply to Nottingham.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15PM
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
