NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 4, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Ms. Gail Mills Mr. Mary Bonser
Mr. Skip Seaverns Mr. Mark Harding
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Charles Brown, Town Administrator
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Greg Stratis, Concrete Products of Londonderry
Mr. Shawn Malone, Homestead Properties
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board opened discussion on the minutes.
Ms. Mills and Mr. Seaverns each noted a typo on page 4. Mr. Smith asked to have the word “she” inserted into the sentence regarding the MPO appointment.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the minutes from September 20, 2006, as amended. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns abstained. The motion passed 3-0, with 1 abstention.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE - MAP 11 LOT 7 - CASE #P06-09-SUB – BLUE FIN DEVELOPMENT:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-09-SUB, Map 11 Lot 7 at 7:15 PM.
Mr. Smith read for the record a letter from Mr. Ladd, representing Blue Fin Development, requesting a continuance until November 15, 2006.
Mr. Seaverns questioned whether the application had been accepted. After review of the file and minutes, Mr. Smith determined that the application had not been accepted at this point.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the public hearing for Blue Fin Development until November 15, 2006 at 7:15. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
BOND CONSIDERATION - GERRIOR DRIVE:
The Chair opened discussion on the Gerrior Drive Bond at 7:30 PM.
Mr. Smith read for the record a letter received with Homestead’s worksheet. He stated that the Planning Board had not received the recommendation from RCCD, yet, therefore the Board was not able to move forward on this. Mr. Malone stated the only thing of concern is that the bank needs the new dollar amount from Homestead by October 10th. Mr. Smith asked if Ms. Chauvey knew when RCCD would submit their recommendation. Ms. Chauvey stated that she had spoken with RCCD earlier in the day, and it would not be in time for tonight’s meeting. Mr. Malone stated that he was aware that Ray Wenninger had gone out to the site after Ms. Chauvey’s phone call and, again, noted that he needed to get the new dollar amount from RCCD
as soon as possible. Ms. Chauvey stated she would contact RCCD and ask them to provide the information to Homestead as soon as it was available. Mr. Smith suggested they return for the October 18 meeting. Mr. Malone stated the bank had informed them that they would need 10 days to prepare the Letter of Credit (LOC) but he thought it was a good idea to schedule them for October 18th. He felt that, at the very least, he could get a letter or confirmation from BankNorth stating they were processing the LOC. Mr. Gylfphe asked what Homestead’s estimate for the Bond is. Mr. Smith stated their worksheet recommended $70,547.82. Mr. Malone stated that approximately $35,000 or $38,000 was the 14% the Town does not allow to be reduced. Mr. Seaverns inquired as to whether the $70K covered
the wear course. Mr. Malone informed him that it did include the wear course, as well as, a culvert, rip-rap channel, and loam and seed. He stated that these items are scheduled to be completed prior to the new bond going into effect, however, since they were not complete at the time he completed the worksheet, he included them as well. Mr. Smith asked if their figure include the maintenance bond. Mr. Malone stated that this bond would be in place for the next year.
Mr. Seaverns asked Mr. Malone to clarify the LOC issue, noting that the current LOC is for both Barrington and Nottingham. Mr. Malone stated that the new LOC for $70K would be for Nottingham only. Barrington will have a separate LOC for approximately $60K. Mr. Seaverns voiced concern about the Town of Nottingham being able to protect the road when Phase II (building in Barrington) happens. He stated that the Town would have no idea when and if Phase II happens and he felt the Town should have a LOC that is tied to Phase II. Mr. Gylfphe stated that State Law requires contractors to be responsible for damages to any town road. Mr. Seaverns stated that is part of the problem. Currently this road is not a town road, however, a vote at the Town Meeting could change that. Mr. Seaverns stated one
remedy would be to have Homestead sign an agreement stating that no construction vehicles will go through the Town of Nottingham. This would only be required at the time the Town accepted the road. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Board of Selectman have ever bonded for heavy construction vehicles. She stated that she believes the Selectman have the authority to require any developer to bond the road they are using. Mr. Seaverns stated the Planning Board has done that before. Ms. Beauchamp stated she would look into the Selectmen’s authority to bond roads when the development is not taking place in the town. Mr. Seaverns stated that this needed to be resolved. Mr. Malone asked how to put closure to this. Ms. Beauchamp stated she would look into it tomorrow.
Mr. Smith asked which line on the cost estimate worksheet would be the maintenance agreement. Mr. Malone stated there is not a line item to it, it is just the collection of the funds being in place for a year. Mr. Smith noted that in most cases of bonds, the bonds are reduced as items are completed. Mr. Smith stated that Barrington wanted to ensure money was left in place until the Barrington development was completed. Mr. Malone posed the question, “What if the Barrington side never gets done.” Mr. Seaverns stated that they were referring to Barrington Phase I and Mr. Malone responded that that was done. Mr. Seaverns asked if the wearing coat was on and Mr. Malone stated that it was not. Mr. Malone also stated that Barrington retains 20% of their bond for a two-year minimum and he would
supply the Board with a copy of that for their record.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the public hearing for Bond Consideration for Gerrior Drive until October 18, at 7:15. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Seaverns asked if things were all set with the address and phone number change Mr. Malone had submitted. Mr. Malone stated it was. Correspondence was now being received at the correct address.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE - MAP 3 LOT 2-2 - CASE #P06-08-SIT – CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF LONDONDERRY, INC.:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-08-SIT, Map 3 Lot 2-2 at 7:55 PM.
Mr. Stratis supplied new plans which include the swale. Mr. Smith asked if any thing else had changed. Mr. Stratis stated that between the plans he submitted at the last meeting and these plans the only difference was the swale. Mr. Smith asked if notice had been given to the Conservation Committee. Ms. Chauvey stated it had not. She was supposed to contact Mr. Demeritt when the plans came in, however, the applicant brought the plans with him to the meeting tonight.
Mr. Stratis stated he got a message from Ms. Chauvey that the plans would be recorded. Ms. Chauvey informed the Board that RCRD does record site plans.
Mr. Smith asked if there were fees owed in association with the application. Ms. Chauvey stated there were. Mr. Seaverns stated the Planning Board could bill the applicant once the final bill from SRPC had been received and record the plan on receipt of payment. Ms. Beauchamp asked Ms. Chauvey to take the plan with her the next time she was going to the Registry to have them check it for recordability.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to grant the site plan review final approval for Concrete Products of Londonderry, Inc. with the understanding that there will be a bill forthcoming. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Plans were signed. Mr. Stratis submitted his new bond for Concrete Product’s pit.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Brown came to speak to the Planning Board about invoices received from Strafford Regional Planning Commission. He inquired about charges being billed to the applicants. Mr. Smith stated that he believed some of the charges were covered by the application fee. Ms. Beauchamp reported that prior discussions regarding billing concluded with the Planning Board deciding not to charge the clients who had already been through review because they were not aware of the additional charge. Mr. Seaverns stated that the completeness review should be part of the application fee. Mr. Brown pointed out that the invoices that were just received were from July 31, 2006. He stated that the issue of timely billing would need to discussed with SRPC. Mr. Brown suggested that in the future the Planning Board may want to
set up escrow accounts for these fees. Mr. Smith stated that was the direction in which the Board is planning to move. Mr. Seaverns stated that he feels there are three separate things the Board is looking at with SRPC billing. There is the completeness report which the Board is trying to incorporate into the application fee; there is the compliance report for which a billing process needs to be created; and lastly, there are specific things that the Town has requested of SRPC which should not be billed to applicants.
Mail was distributed.
Ms. Chauvey stated she had new plans for Map 18 Lot 16-6, Case #P06-11-SUB, Clark, Howard & Ann. Mr. Smith asked why the plans had been rejected. Ms. Chauvey informed them that the little box in the center that says “Parcel A” is too bold. She also stated that she asked only for a new mylar, not paper copies. Mr. Seaverns stated we should request new paper copies also. Ms. Chauvey agreed. Ms. Beauchamp asked Ms. Chauvey to make a note on their paper copies of what transpired. She also stated that a copy could be retained from the Registry. Mr. Seaverns asked if the stamp is on the copy when you get it from RCRD. Ms. Beauchamp stated it is. Mr. Seaverns stated we should request it every time.
Mr. Smith inquired as to how soon we could set up escrow accounts for the planning charges Mr. Brown had brought to their attention. He also asked if lines should be added to the application to let the applicant know that an escrow will need to be set up once the completeness report is done. Escrow accounts need to be set up sometime between acceptance and final approval. Mr. Seaverns stated the completeness review letter should give the applicant the estimate for the escrow.
Mr. Smith asked Ms. Chauvey if she had received the copies from Attorney Teague’s office that she was to forward on to Northwood. Ms. Chauvey indicated she had not. Mr. Smith stated he would call him tomorrow. Mr. Smith told Mr. Seaverns that Northwood has requested an update on the USA Springs project. Mr. Smith read for the record a letter he had asked Ms. Chauvey to draft to Northwood in response. Mr. Seaverns did not like the word negotiations. Ms. Beauchamp suggested using the term “working with our Attorney to satisfy conditions of the decision.” Mr. Seaverns questioned whether information should be sent to all towns that were deemed regionally impacted by the Planning Board. Mr. Smith stated he felt we should send this information on to Northwood because it was
requested. At the time of final decision information can be sent to all.
Ms. Chauvey asked Ms. Mills if she had spoken to the Conservation Committee about review of application, timelines, etc. Ms. Mill said she has not.
Ms. Chauvey reported that Mr. Colby, the Building Inspector, could not commit to the MPO TAC team at this time.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 8.50 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
