NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 15, 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. Kenneth Chaput, Applicant
Mr. Robert Shields, Gerrior Lane Trust
Mr. Steve Michaud, Doucet Survey
Mr. Jonathan Daniels, Applicant
Mr. Leonard Giles, Property Owner
Mr. Reed Murphy, Abutter
Mr. James Ryan
Ms. Catherine Ladd, RSL Layout & Design
Mr. Steven Black, Abutter
Ms. Susan Masison, Abutter
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board opened discussion on the minutes.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Harding, Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Gylfphe voted in favor. Ms. Mills abstained. Motion passed 5-0, with 1 abstention.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE - MAP 39 LOTS 18 &19 - CASE #P06-12-LL – CHAPUT, KENNTH & SHARON/DOUCET:
The Chair opened the public meeting at 7:06 PM
Mr . Michaud spoke in representation of Kenneth and Sharon Chaput. He stated that he believed the only issue that arose from the first meeting was monumenting of the two new lot corners. He informed the Board this has been done and that he brought a new mylar with him. Mr. Seaverns asked Mr. Michaud if he had copies of the final plan. Mr. Michaud stated he did and distributed copies for the Board to review. Mr. Michaud noted that he had also addressed comments received from Strafford Regional Planning Commission regarding the driveway. He stated that Mr. Chaput had informed him that the second driveway is not used and is now depicted as a gravel area on the plat. A note has been added to the plat stating that the area will not be used as a driveway until necessary approvals could be obtained.
He stated that the actual driveway is the one that goes directly to the house. Mr. Michaud stated he had also clarified the note regarding shoreland protection district, noting that he referenced the State RSA.
Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Michaud had a response to the note from SRPC regarding a request for a no disturbance/no cut setback. Mr. Michaud stated they had taken a look at it, however, because of the limited scope of this project and the fact that a large portion of the property is already protected within the jurisdiction of shore land protection, they have decided not to offer additional buffers at this time.
Ms. Bonser asked if 9-1-1 references were on the previous plan. Mr. Michaud stated they were not. Mr. Seaverns stated that the lots have 9-1-1 numbers and neither lot has changed.
At this time, Mr. Smith went through the Compliance Review letter from Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC).
SRPC’s letter indicated there was only one approved driveway permit for Map 39 Lot 19.
At Ms. Chauvey’s request, Mr. Chaput stepped forward to point out, on the plat, which driveway is currently being used. Mr. Seaverns asked which driveway the permit was for. Mr. Michaud indicated it was the southern driveway. Mr. Seaverns pointed out that the driveway being used is not the approved driveway and that the notes on the plat were written based on the approval, not what is actual. Mr. Seaverns asked what was in the area of the approved driveway. Mr. Michaud stated there is a general travel way in a horseshoe shape. Mr. Seaverns stated that based on the plat there should be two driveway permits, however, the property has one driveway permit which is what is required. He stated that based on the plat in front of them, he felt they should move forward and that the applicant could come
in at his own convenience and apply for the second permit. Mr. Smith asked if everyone is all set with that. Ms. Bonser asked if Lot 18 already has a driveway permit. Mr. Michaud stated that Lot 18 predates permits.
SRPC’s comments recommended a no cut, no disturbance setback monumented at the applicants expense or limit any cutting in the shoreland buffer to the 116 foot contour where the topography starts to become steep, along with a fence to limit disturbance to steep slopes and a berm to prevent any runoff or erosion. Mr. Michaud stated that the 116 foot contour closely follows a line which is 150 feet from the river, which according to the Shoreland Protection District Regulations is the natural woodland buffer line. They did not feel it was necessary to further protect this area since it is already protected. Mr. Michaud also stated that the sheds on Map 39 Lot 18 are all within the shoreland protection setbacks.
SRPC’s comments recommended a request for the portion of the wetland located near the pasture to be fenced in to keep the horses out and a request for a berm to be constructed along the wetland perimeter to prevent any contamination from runoff. Mr. Chaput indicated that there are rocks all around that area and the horses cannot get in. Mr. Gylfphe stated this is just a lot line adjustment and there is no change of use being requested.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the lot line adjustment from Kenneth and Sharon Chaput on McCrillis and South Summers Street, Map 39 Lots 18 & 19. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Mylars and copies were signed. Mr. Michaud and Mr. Chaput left the meeting.
BOND UPDATE – GERRIOR LANE TRUST – HOMESTEAD DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Shields addressed the Board. He apologized for his behavior at the last meeting stating that he was under a great amount of stress. He stated that in his 29 years as a developer he has never been in a position of having a Letter of Credit called. He noted that he has a good relationship with TD Banknorth and something like that would ruin it.
He informed the Board that he had met with officials in Barrington the next morning and was able to provide them with enough cash for them to sign off on the original letter of credit and keep them happy until they received a new LOC in its place. He wanted to thank the Board and Administrative staff for the critical communication that took place the next morning to be sure the LOC did not get called.
As far a the project goes, they are working with Ray Winninger and RCCD on the main construction of the roadway. He inquired as to what should be done moving forward. Mr. Smith stated that once they are completed and the Board has received letters from RCCD, Gerrior Lane Trust will need to be put back on the agenda.
Ms. Bonser stated that currently the Town of Nottingham has two bonds and are no longer joined with Barrington. Speaking to Mr. Shields, she stated that she hopes he understands the position the Town was in with the calling of the bond. Mr. Shields stated that he understands and was just surprised that he had not been contacted by Barrington.
Mr. Gylfphe noted that spec houses on the original plan are not what was built. Mr. Shields stated that they had made changes and he had received many compliments on the spec houses.
Mr. Shields left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE - MAP 11 LOT 17 - CASE #P06-09-SUB – BLUE FIN DEVELOPMENT:
The Chair opened the public meeting at 7:50 PM
Catherine Ladd from RSL Layout & Design spoke in representation of Blue Fin Development. She stated they have moved the driveway to make it a shared driveway on the lot line. Mr. Smith asked if there was a new dredge and fill permit. Ms. Ladd stated it had been submitted but was not yet approved. Mr. Smith asked how the new driveway was going to affect the water crossing, noting that he remembered a pool where the new driveway is indicated on the plat. Ms. Ladd stated they had been denied through zoning to use the existing woods road for the driveway. This is the new plan and they have applied for a new dredge and fill. She stated she is not sure what DES will do about the original dredge and fill, possibly take it away. Mr. Smith stated that disturbance of the wetlands on the first plat
was less than half the disturbance on this plat. Ms. Ladd stated she was aware of that. Mr. Gylfphe indicated the lot had been subdivided just this past November and another subdivision was not allowed by zoning. Mr. Seaverns stated the previous subdivision does not fall under new zoning.
Ms. Ladd asked for a continuance until the dredge and fill and driveway permits are in place. She stated the driveway permit will not be applied for until they have approval on the dredge and fill. She also noted that they did not have a letter from the fire department, at this time.
Mr. Seaverns inquired as to how close the Board was to 65 days. Ms. Chauvey stated the date of the application is July 31, 2006. Mr. Seaverns asked if the application had been accepted, yet. Ms. Chauvey stated she did not think it was. Ms. Ladd asked if she could get acceptance of the application tonight. Mr. Seaverns stated he did not feel it would benefit the applicant any to vote on acceptance tonight.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to continue the public hearing for RSL Layout & Design for Blue Fin Development, Map 11 Lot 7, Case #P06-09-SUB until December 6, 2006 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING – RSL LAYOUT & DESIGN FOR LEONARD GILES REVOCABLE TRUST - SUBDIVISION DESIGN REVIEW - MAP 17 LOT 31 - CASE #P06-15-SUB:
Mr. Smith informed those present that this hearing would not take place tonight because two abutters had not been notified. He stated that the address on the abutter’s list for Ms. Lucille Howard was incorrect and the notification had been returned and that Mr. Douglas Dimes had been omitted from the abutter’s list altogether. Ms. Ladd stated she had a letter from Ms. Howard stating that she had been notified and she also compared her list to the list supplied to the Planning Office and noted that there was an error of omission for Mr. Dimes.
Ms. Beauchamp informed the Board that her understanding of procedure is that they could open the public meeting, let Ms. Ladd present so that those who attended could hear the plan, then continue the hearing until such time that the other two abutters could be notified. She also informed the Board that they are not to give any advice or make any comments until after all abutters have been notified. Ms. Ladd stated she would like to do that.
Mr. Jim Ryan asked if this application for a subdivision design review contain any language relevant to a lot line adjustment. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board had not seen it, yet, so they did not know. Ms. Bonser asked why he was inquiring. Mr. Ryan stated that he had thought this application was possibly a continuation of the Howard Lot Line Adjustment. Ms. Beauchamp stated it was not. Ms. Bonser asked if it was in the same area. Mr. Ryan stated it was. Ms. Bonser suggested he stay to hear the plan.
Ms. Ladd, speaking for the Trust, stated the property contains a little more than 66 acres out on Gebig Road. RSL has depicted Stage Road on the plat because they are proposing a 23-lot subdivision on Map 17 Lot 31 with access off Gebig Road and eventually coming out on Stage Road. She stated that Mr. Leonard Giles and Mr. Howard are coordinating the project together. She also wanted to note that the Town owns Lot 32 and the plan was to put in a loop that would give the Town access to its property.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to continue the hearing until December 6, 2006 at 7:30 PM. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING – DANIELS, JONATHAN & LISA - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION - MAP 1 LOT 70 - CASE #P06-14-SUB:
The Chair opened the public meeting at 8:20 PM
Mr. Landry spoke in representation of the Daniels. He showed a plat of Lot 30 on Cooper Hill Road stating the lot is 24 acres. The Daniels are proposing a four lot subdivision. Ms. Bonser confirmed it was four lots including the original lot. Mr. Landry informed the Board that State Subdivision approval has been received pending State Dredge & Fill approval. Mr. Landry described the lots that are being proposed. Regarding proposed Lot C, Mr. Landry noted that the driveway is laid out as a proposed future shared driveway, incase the applicants wish to divide that 12 acre lot in the future, clarifying that this application is for the 12 acre lot as a whole. Mr. Landry stated that he brought a waiver request for the lack of topo on Lot 70C. He feels that if the applicants decided to subdivide
that lot in the future, topo could be presented at that time.
Ms. Bonser asked if the Planning Board was to agree to the proposed future driveway at this point in time, would that be an approval for that subdivision in the future. Mr. Seaverns stated that the plat should just state driveway. Mr. Landry said that could be done. Mr. Seaverns stated that the other option would be to subdivide it now. Mr. Daniels indicated he did not want to do that. Mr. Seaverns noted that the driveway is not perpendicular to the road. Mr. Landry stated that it is at a 70-degree angle. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board prefers to see them perpendicular. Mr. Landry stated that he had started perpendicular, however, this angle is better in regards to the wetlands.
Mr. Landry stated that all of the items on the checklist are addressed in the current plat. He noted that, regarding the nonconforming existing streets, there has been previous subdivisions up and down Cooper Hill Road that have handled the dedication for widening the right of ways, so they would not be addressing that with this application. Mr. Seaverns stated that this side has been subdivided quite a bit and typically what is dedicated is 25 feet from the center. Mr. Landry believes the dedication has been from the opposite side of Cooper Hill Road. Mr. Seaverns stated they would need to get documentation on this. Mr. Landry stated he would look into it.
Mr. Gylfphe asked if Lot 70B contained North River Lake Road. Mr. Landry stated it’s the center line of North River Lake Road.
Mr. Landry stated he was still in need of the Fire Department’s response. He has initiated driveway permits, however, the Building Inspector has not been notified to look at them, yet. They have applied for State permits. Mr. Landry asked if the Board was requiring Monumentation Certificates. Ms. Beauchamp stated her understanding is that they are accepting it on the plans. Mr. Seaverns stated that if the plan that is presented for signature shows them as being set, that was acceptable and no Certificate is needed. Mr. Landry stated they are also still in need of 9-1-1 numbers. Mr. Landry asked Ms. Beauchamp if she did 9-1-1 numbers. She responded that she did not.
Mr. Smith went through SRPC’s Completeness Review comments.
SRPC’s comments noted the signature of Lisa Daniels was missing from the application. Mr. Landry supplied an application with her signature.
SRPC’s comments noted Plan Reference #3 needed to be changed from Susan Daniels to Lisa Daniels. Mr. Landry stated that would be no problem.
SRPC’s comments regarding the waiver for topography were already addressed.
SRPC’s comments noted that the existing driveway for Lot #70 should be clearly shown on the plan. It was clearly defined on the copy Mr. Landry brought with him this evening.
SRPC’s comments recommended a shared driveway for Lots 70A & 70B to lessen the impact on the wetlands. Ms. Beauchamp stated there would be one less wetland impact if there was a shared driveway. Ms. Bonser asked if she was suggesting the driveway cut be on one of the properties as opposed to on the property line. Ms. Beauchamp stated she was. Mr. Smith stated that the Zoning Board had just denied a request for that. Ms. Beauchamp stated she was aware of their denial but totally disagreed with their decision. She stated she does not share the opinion of the ZBA and is making a recommendation of what would be better than impacting the wetland. Mr. Seaverns stated that there were no other options for a shared driveway between these two lots.
SRPC’s comments noted that the plat showed Tax Map 1 Lot 6, but should be Tax Map 1 Lot 64. Mr. Landry responded that he will fix that.
Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board to address the culverts. Mr. Landry stated he would add them to the plan. He stated they are on the dredge and fill plan. Mr. Smith stated that the Board had what they needed for acceptance.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to accept the subdivision application of Jonathan and Lisa Daniels on Cooper Hill Road, Map 1 Lot 70, Case #P06-14-SUB, as complete. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to continue the hearing for the design review and final approval of the subdivision application from Jonathan and Lisa Daniels on Cooper Hill Road, Map 1 Lot 70, Case #P06-14-SUB until December 6, 2006, at 7:45 PM. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mail was distributed.
Mr. Smith read a copy of a letter from DOT addressed to Ms. Diane Kirkwood in response to a letter she wrote voicing concerns about the traffic patterns on Rte. 4 in relation to USA Springs. The DOT copied the Department of Justice on this letter.
Ms. Chauvey presented the Board with a packet of documents received from the Court regarding document destruction in the USA Springs case. Mr. Teague’s office is supposed to be picking them up prior to the deadline.
Ms. Chauvey handed out a spreadsheet breakdown of SRPC’s billing for the Board to review. She informed the Board that Charlie Brown, Town Administrator, was hoping to address the billing issue. She stated that she broke the billing down by client, then by the fiscally responsible party (i.e., the applicant or the Town). There is also a section not associated with applications that is Town responsibility. She explained to the Board that, to date, there has only been $225.00 collected for the costs listed as applicant responsibility, the Town has paid the rest. Ms. Beauchamp asked Ms. Chauvey if she could include the amount paid by the applicant for the application fee (not abutters fees, published notice fee, etc.), on the report. Ms. Chauvey stated she would. Mr. Smith asked if Ms. Beauchamp
would be charging applicants’ for her time tonight. She stated she would. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Chaput had been made aware that there would be more fees. Ms. Beauchamp stated he had not. Ms Chauvey stated she had been told that it states that there may be third party billing in the Regulations. Mr. Smith stated it does, however, he felt the Board should not be billing applicants who were not informed of the upcoming charge at the time of application. Ms. Chauvey informed the Board that she needed a clear answer before leaving as to whether or not she should be billing applicants at this time. Mr. Seaverns stated that no applicant’s should be billed at this time. He then inquired about the section of report not associated with applications. Ms. Chauvey stated that was broken down as best it could be between meetings, file reorganization, and miscellaneous things such as working on the Regulations and Subdivision
Application. Ms. Chauvey stated that she felt the Board needed to take into consideration that they are spending $45.00 an hour to have Ms. Beauchamp reorganize the files from name to Map/Lot. She stated that she did not feel this was something that needed to be done by a Planner. Ms. Mills inquired about the use of an intern. Mr. Seaverns stated that the filing is priority task number 1 on the contract and he felt it should be labeled that way. Ms. Mills suggested the Board approach a college and ask about interns. She indicated that she is not comfortable with the term, “there may be additional fees associated…” and would rather see an amount. Ms. Bonser stated she felt that charging the hourly rate above the application fee is more appropriate than raising the application fee. She also stated that she felt by the time the Board was able to get an intern in, Michelle would be finished the files. Mr. Smith
stated he felt it would cause confusion to get an intern at this point. Ms. Mills agreed there would be a learning curve but felt it would be worth it. She also stated it was a good way to build a reputation with the schools for future needs. Ms. Bonser asked how far back Ms. Beauchamp has gone with the files. Ms. Beauchamp responded that back through 2002 is complete. Ms. Mills said the point is that the Board is paying $45.00 an hour for Ms. Beauchamp plus the cost of the Planning Board Secretary when an intern could do it for free. Ms. Bonser inquired as to who would do the foot work and Ms. Mills responded that she would. Ms. Beauchamp stated another benefit of having an intern would be to free up her time to do the things that cannot be passed on to someone else. Ms. Mills stated she would speak to Mr. Brown, Town Administrator about it. Mr. Seaverns stated he did not think there should be another person in the Planning
Office on Thursday’s. Ms. Mills asked if Ms. Beauchamp and Ms. Chauvey were crowded around the same work space on Thursdays. Ms. Beauchamp stated no. Ms. Bonser stated she felt better knowing that the files were complete through 2002 and was comfortable with the idea of someone else doing the older files. She stated she feels it is cost effective means. Mr. Seaverns indicated his dissent, again. Ms. Beauchamp stated there are always 2 interns on staff at SRPC. Ms. Chauvey asked what college they were from. Ms. Beauchamp stated she did not know. Ms. Bonser reiterated that Ms. Mills should speak with Mr. Brown. Ms. Mills stated she first wanted to find out if anything is available but would contact Mr. Brown once she had something to present to him.
Ms. Beauchamp distributed a page containing a copy of the “Buildable area” definition from the Zoning Ordinance & Subdivision Regulations and, also, Section IV F from the Subdivision Regulations. She confirmed that her interpretation of the buildable area if different from the Boards. She suggested that the board remove the words, “all existing setback ordinances and all,” in the first sentence and replace it with “the.” Then, add “The building shall meet all existing setback ordinances,” to the end. Mr. Seaverns stated he did not like the last sentence. Ms. Beauchamp stated she would remove it. Ms. Mills asked if this meant that the well, the shed, the house and everything needs to be in the buildable area. Mr. Seaverns stated the buildable area is
the area that is deemed buildable and can include area in the 50 foot setbacks. For example, if you take a lot that has 200 feet of road frontage as the Town requires and then remove the setbacks from the buildable area, the area remaining is only 100 feet X 200 feet. Ms. Mills inquired about State Regulations saying a septic can be 10 feet from the lot line. Mr. Seaverns confirmed that 10 feet is State Regulation, but Nottingham’s Regulations say 50 feet. Ms. Beauchamp agreed that is what Regulations state noting, however, that that is not what the Planning Board does. Ms. Bonser stated she would like to go without a definition of 200 sq. ft. or 60K and just have them abide by setbacks. Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board to clarify what they want. Mr. Seaverns stated that everything should be inside the setbacks once all is said and done. Everyone agreed. Ms. Beauchamp stated she needs to know where the Board wants to go with
this definition. She said the Board needed to hold a public hearing.
Mr. Smith stated the Board would hold a workshop on November 29th to discuss the definition and the subdivision application and any other unfinished business.
Mr. Harding made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
Planning Board Meeting Minutes Approval Signatures
-
Signature of Chair Signature of Secretary
| 
