NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Mark Harding Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Sean Malone, Gerrior Lane Trust
Mr. Robert Shields, Gerrior Lane Trust
Mr. Kenneth Chaput, Property Owner
Mr. Steve Michaud, Doucet Survey
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:20 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board opened discussion on the minutes.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Ms. Bonser and Mr. Harding abstained. Motion passed 3-0, with 2 abstentions.
BOND CONSIDERATION – GERRIOR LANE TRUST – HOMESTEAD DEVELOPMENT:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Bond Consideration for Gerrior Lane Trust at 7:25 PM.
Mr. Smith read for the record a portion of the draft minutes from the Board of Selectmen’s meeting held on Monday, October 16, 2006, stating that the Board of Selectmen approved calling in the Letter of Credit (LOC) if the Planning Board felt that was the appropriate course of action based on this meeting tonight.
Ms. Bonser stated that she had contacted Ms. Reilly, Town Administrator for the Town of Barrington, and had received a letter, in response to inquiry of the completeness. Copies of the letter were distributed. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Malone if he had received the recommendations from RCCD. Mr. Malone stated they received a letter dated October 6, addressed to the Planning Board recommending two bonds. A bond reduction and a maintenance bond. Mr. Malone stated that TD Banknorth had sent, by overnight mail, a new LOC for the maintenance bond and a draft for the renewal of the construction LOC. Ms. Beauchamp inquired about the draft. Mr. Malone stated the Bank was waiting for Barrington to sign off on the renewal for the original LOC. Mr. Malone stated that based on the letter received in response to
Ms. Bonser’s inquiry, they would need to speak with Barrington in the morning. Ms. Bonser stated that based on the letter Barrington was not going to sign off and that would leave the Town of Nottingham with nothing. Ms. Beauchamp stated that a draft is nothing. Mr. Smith read for the record a portion of the cover letter from TD Banknorth stating the bank was prepared to issue the extension on the new LOC, once Barrington signs off.
Mr. Seaverns stated he had thought that the Town of Nottingham was getting two new LOC’s, but what the Board has received is a new LOC for the maintenance bond and a renewal of the existing LOC for construction. Mr. Malone stated that the renewal was written to remove Barrington as a beneficiary. Mr. Malone stated that Dawn Hatch, Barrington’s Land Use Clerk, was going to write a letter to TD Banknorth stating it was ok to remove Barrington as beneficiary on the existing LOC. Ms. Bonser stated this has been in discussion for months and should have been all taken care of by now. She stated that the Planning Board cannot vote based on assurances and drafts. Mr. Shields stated the Boards option is to call the existing letter. Mr. Malone asked if the vote could state to call the letter if a new one
was not received by the 20th. Ms. Chauvey stated she believed the demand needed to be delivered to Burlington, MA and read for the record a portion of the demand section of the existing LOC. Mr. Shields stated he did not think is was reasonable to call a $686,037.32 LOC when they were 99% complete. Ms. Bonser stated the Board has no choice because of time constraints. She also stated that Gerrior Lane Trust had been given ample time to resolve this. Mr. Shields stated that a lot of the burden had been on the wait for RCCD to get their recommendations to Gerrior
Lane Trust and then the Bank needed 10 days. Mr. Seaverns made a recommendation that the Board write a letter to the Bank indicating that the Board understands that action has been taken to get the renewal LOC in place. However, there are concerns that it won’t happen by the 20th and that the Planning Board will call the existing letter of credit if they do not have a new or renewal LOC in the amount of $102,319.96 on October 20, 2006. Mr. Shields suggested the Board add the option for the Bank to extend the current LOC as is, incase Barrington drags their feet in releasing themselves for the renewal LOC. Ms. Beauchamp stated she did not feel that was the agreement made two months ago. Gerrior Lane Trust was to be supplying separate bonds for the towns of Barrington and Nottingham at this time. Mr. Shields stated that is the plan, however, things happen out of their control and this would cover the Town until that could happen. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Board was willing to
accept a renewal of the bond in both town names. Mr. Seaverns stated that it would not be a renewal but rather an extension of the existing LOC until the renewal could be issued. Mr. Malone stated he thought that at present the thing that was going to happen was that the existing LOC was going to be renewed. Mr. Seaverns stated that the cover letter should have stated that.
Mr. Shields stated he did not feel it was reasonable to call it at 10:00 AM the next morning. Ms. Bonser stated that that was when Barrington was planning to call it. Ms. Beauchamp stated she did not recommend the Town renewing the existing LOC even if it was only for 30 days. She feels the Town should have its own bond. Mr. Shields stated it was ludicrous to think they would be able to separate the two towns by 10:00 AM tomorrow morning. Ms. Beauchamp stated this should have been taken care of already. Mr. Smith stated that what Ms. Beauchamp states is her recommendation only. Mr. Shields stated they are doing their best to separate the bond to accommodate the Town. Ms. Bonser stated she only received the letter from Barrington at 4:24 PM and what had prompted her phone call was Mr. Malone’s comments in the minutes from the last meeting stating that Barrington Phase I was complete. She called Ms. Reilly to check. Mr. Shields stated the he did not think Mr. Malone had
stated it was 100% done. He went on to say if we had taken more accurate minutes they would have noted he mentioned the detention pond, and so forth. Ms. Chauvey asked if Mr. Shields would like to hear the tape. She stated that Mr. Malone had said Barrington Phase I was completed and Mr. Seaverns asked him about the wear coat to which Mr. Malone replied that the wear coat was not down. Mr. Malone stated that was what his impression was. He stated that they had never gotten any indication from Barrington’s Road Agent that there was a problem. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board needs to write and fax a letter to TD Banknorth stating that the Town of Nottingham has voted to call the existing LOC on October 20, 2006, unless the current LOC is extended or a new or renewed LOC in the amount of $102,319.96 is issued to the Town of Nottingham.
Ms. Bonser inquired about what happens if Barrington calls the LOC at 10:00 AM on the 19th and Nottingham has not done anything. Mr. Seaverns stated that if they call it without Nottingham it is meaningless. Mr. Shield stated that the way he understood it, whoever calls the bond is responsible for covering the roadways for the other town. Mr. Smith stated he thought it had to be called by both towns. Ms. Chauvey stated the LOC stated “or.” Mr. Shields stated either one can call it.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to call the Performance Bond in the form of a LOC, in the amount of $686,037.32, TD Banknorth #9425292, set to expire October 20, 2006. This vote to call the LOC will only be voided if the principals of Gerrior Lane Trust, Homestead Development, or TD Banknorth performs the following by 10:00 AM on October 19, 2006:
1. Extend the existing LOC in the amount of $686,037.32, or
2. Secures a new or renewed LOC in the amount of $102,319.96 to the Town of Nottingham.
Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Smith suggested Gerrior Lane Trust reschedule to come back before the Planning Board again on November 15, 2006. He also stated there was a date typo on the issue date for the new maintenance bond LOC. It was agreed they would be scheduled to return at 7:10 PM on November 15, 2006.
Mr. Malone and Mr. Shields left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING-MAP 39 LOTS 18 &19 - CASE #P06-12-LL – CHAPUT, KENNTH & SHARON/DOUCET:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-12-LL, Map 39 Lots 18 & 19 at 8:11 PM.
Steve Michaud, Doucet Suvey, represented Kenneth and Sharon Chaput for a Lot Line Adjustment. He stated the Chaput’s wish to sell one of the lots but first want to add acreage to their property by reconfiguring the property line. They would be increasing their acreage to approximately 4 acres and decreasing the other lot to approximately 2 acres. Mr. Michaud stated that in 1993 the lots received State subdivision approval and there would be no impact to the leach fields of either property with this lot line adjustment. Mr. Michaud stated they had done the plans in a 1”=40’ scale. The waiver was in the file along with two others.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the application and the following waivers: Section V:A-9, Individual Lot Sewerage Facilities, because the septic systems already exist, Section V:A-14, Wetland Soils, because they were already delineated on a previous plan, and Section V:A, Plan Scale, because the scale that is used makes the most use of the paper. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the hearing until 7:05 PM on November 15, 2006. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Michaud and Mr. Chaput left the meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mail was distributed.
Ms. Chauvey asked the Board to clarify the new charges for a Lot Line Adjustment application. Mr. Seaverns stated the fee should be per lot. Ms. Beauchamp stated the Board should make a motion to put a change before the Board of Selectmen for the fee to be what the Planning Board feels is appropriate.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to put a recommendation before the Board of Selectmen changing the Lot Line Adjustment fee from $100 plus $100 per lot line to $100 plus $50 per lots affected. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Beauchamp asked Ms. Chauvey if the remapping fee was also an issue. Ms. Chauvey stated that the remapping fee is on the fee schedule but she did not know what it is. She also stated she has never charged it. Ms. Beauchamp explained it should be collected, upon final approval, for any application that will change the tax maps (i.e., not site plans). Ms. Beauchamp explained it is costly for the town to have its maps updated and that cost should be passed on to the applicants. Mr. Seaverns inquired as to whether the remapping fee should be collected for voluntary mergers. Ms. Beauchamp stated that based on earlier Planning Board conversations, no fees were going to be collected for a voluntary merger because the town wants them to happen.
Ms. Chauvey asked what fee she should be charging the current LLA applicant based on the current rate sheet. Mr. Seaverns stated he felt the applicant should be charged $200.00.
Ms. Beauchamp revisited the bond issue asking what Nottingham intended to do if Barrington called the bond at 10:00 AM on the 19th. It became clear that not all Board Members understood what would happen by calling the bond. Ms. Beauchamp and Ms. Chauvey explained that the current bond is written to Barrington or Nottinghmam, and that either town could call it at any time. They also explained that once it is called by a town, the other town would have to rely on the town that called it to cover their roads. Ms. Chauvey stated for the record that she is uncomfortable faxing a letter at 9:00 AM which threatens action at 10:00 AM if certain conditions are not met, however, based on the motion made tonight she would have a letter ready at 9:00 AM tomorrow morning. Ms. Bonser stated she would come
in at 9:00 AM to sign the letter.
Ms. Beauchamp presented a draft of a Heavy Trucking Ordinance, which the Board had spoken about at the last meeting based on the situation with Gerrior Drive and Phase II of the subdivision. Mr. Seaverns made a suggestion to remove Appendix A, the list of roads. Ms. Beauchamp explained the RSA requires the road(s) be listed. Mr. Seaverns asked if the Board of Selectmen’s road list could be referenced. Ms. Beauchamp stated that could be done if the town wished to place the ordinance on all town roads. Mr. Seaverns asked why we would not want to list all roads. Ms. Beauchamp exlained that it is not fair to the trucking companies to require bonding for road usage of a Town road that is in disrepair. Ms. Bonser stated she has a problem with this ordinance. She stated that too many
people rely on road usage and it would be insane to try to have everyone get bonded. Ms. Beauchamp explained that not everyone needs to be bonded and it is not for every road. She stated that this ordinance is only an example; that the Board of Selectmen can apply the ordinance to whatever road they choose for only as long as they choose to. Ms. Beauchamp went on to explain that the RSA states that the covered roads must be called out with the weight limits in the ordinance, and the roads must be posted. Ms. Bonser stated she felt this would give the police department more work than could be handled. Mr. Smith stated that he felt an ordinance such as this would require change quite frequently in the manner the Town would use it. Ms. Bonser stated she felt it adequate that the Road Agent post roads in the Spring as needed. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Planning Board does have the authority to post Town roads, as needed. Mr. Seaverns
stated there is a problem that exists when development in another town impinges upon Nottingham’s roads, however, this responsibility lies with the Selectmen, not the Planning Board.
Ms. Chauvey present the new Whitney Scott – Horseplay mylar for signature. She asked Mr. Seaverns if he wanted her to obtain copies from the Registry when plans are recorded. Mr. Seaverns stated he would like her to find out the cost and report back to the Board.
Ms. Chauvey stated she felt the Board would need to have another discussion regarding fees fairly soon. In going through billing for SRPC, it is apparent that fees are not and will not cover the costs. Ms. Chauvey asked Ms. Beauchamp if SRPC could separate the bills not only by applicant but also by fiscal responsibility (i.e., paid by applicant or paid by PB). Ms. Beauchamp stated she would talk with her billing clerk. Ms. Chauvey stated she had had a talk with Mr. Brown and there were other issue with billing that needed to be addressed such as billing applicants for meeting time. Ms. Beauchamp stated she attended the meetings so that the Board could ask her questions regarding the case being addressed and she felt if the Town was not going to bill applicants for her attendance, then she should not attend. Ms. Chauvey stated that she felt Ms. Beauchamp’s work on behalf of the applicant was the Completeness report and the Compliance report. She stated that those reports were
quite clear and precise and that she felt it was the responsibility of the Board to pick it up from there. Ms. Chauvey and Ms. Bonser agreed that Ms. Beauchamp’s presence at the meeting was valuable and felt it could be paid for out of the PB budget. Mr. Seaverns stated that the applicant is responsible for the cost of experts and Ms. Beauchamp is an expert. He also stated that he does not know what the cost is once all is said and done and that he would have a problem with a $500.00 fee being billed to the applicant. Ms. Beauchamp stated that in the past, when Ms. Copeland attended the meetings, the applicant was billed meeting time and mileage. Mr. Smith asked if Gerrior Drive would be charged for her time at the meeting tonight. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Gerrior Drive was not one of the applicants. Mr. Seaverns stated that the applicant needs to be aware that experts will be in attendance for their application and that they will be
expected to pay the hourly rate for those experts. Ms. Chauvey stated she felt is was important for the Board to move forward with the new application in a timely manner. Mr. Seaverns stated that one difference between billing with Ms. Copeland and billing with Ms. Beauchamp is that Ms. Copeland billed the client directly where Ms. Beauchamp bills the client through the Town. Mr. Seaverns stated that he felt Ms. Chauvey was correct with the Completeness review, however, he felt that Ms. Beauchamp should be attending the Compliance review to be sure she hears what the Board thinks they hear, so she is able to guide them along. He rhetorically inquired as to whether we were talking about billing the applicant for 15 minutes. Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board to tell her directly for which services she is to bill the client. Mr. Seaverns stated he was not sure, but he felt the applicant should be billed for compliance review and compliance
meetings. Ms. Chauvey asked Mr. Seaverns to help her understand why he looked at compliance differently than completeness regarding billing. Mr. Seaverns explained that during compliance you have absolutely no idea what issue will arise. As an example, the Board may need guidance on setting up a letter of credit. Ms. Chauvey stated that she still needed clarification between compliance and completeness. Ms. Bonser stated she wasn’t sure if we shouldn’t be billing for completeness also, however, since the Board needs to start somewhere, she was comfortable starting with compliance. Ms. Bonser stated that if the Board needed to hire someone to assist in making sure they were looking at a good plan then the applicant should pay for it.
Mr. Smith asked if everyone had received a copy of the changed conditions for USA Springs. He stated it has been submitted to the court. Mr. Gylfphe asked if DES should be contacted regarding water quality. Ms. Bonser stated she thought it was noted in their conditions. Mr. Seaverns stated that this was an issue for the Board of Selectmen to follow up on. Ms. Bonser suggested a memo should originate from the PB to the BOS. The Board then asked Ms. Chauvey to send a memo to the BOS asking them to be sure to follow up with DES regarding water quality since Judge McHugh’s order preempted the PB from doing anything with water quality.
Mr. Smith informed those present that BearPaw was holding a meeting on November 14th, at Deerfield Town Hall at 7:00. He stated is was a conservation roundtable. Ms. Beauchamp asked if anyone had read the conservational plan that SRPC and Rockingham are proposing. The Board has not received a copy. Ms. Beauchamp stated it was on SRPC’s website.
Mr. Smith announced that SRPC went up on dues.
Mr. Smith announced that CIP was holding a public hearing Monday, October 23rd to adopt the newest Capital Improvement Request.
Mr. Gylfphe motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
