NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 29, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Skip Seaverns (arrived at 7:30)
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Celia Abrams, Conservation Commission
Ms. Charlene Andersen, Resident
Ms. Cheryl Smith, Conservation Commission
Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Chair opened discussion on the minutes.
Ms. Gail Mills made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 15th meeting as written. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE:
Members of the Conservation Committee came to speak with the Planning Board regarding the Blue Fin Zoning application and how it effects planning. Ms. Bonser asked to be brought up to speed on the application. Ms. Beauchamp stated that her understanding is that the first application was for a shared driveway on the original woods road however, the ZBA denied the application because the curb cut was on one lot, not on the boundary line. Ms. Smith reported that the proposed new crossing is more than twice the distance across the wetland. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Conservation Committee had sent a letter to DES. Ms. Smith reported that Mr. Demerit has been trying to reach them to come out to do a site walk. Ms. Beauchamp recommended that a letter be written to DES and copied to both the Planning Board and
Mr. Ladd, the surveyor, voicing all concerns. Ms. Smith asked if the applicant could go back to the Board now that Conservation has reviewed the plans. Ms. Beauchamp stated they could not go back before Zoning with the same application.
Ms. Smith indicated that she felt cases like this would be handled more effectively if there was better communication between the different boards and departments. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the new application and its process would require that certain departments get notice of all applications. Ms. Bonser suggested e-mailing the Conservation Commission all ZBA notices. Ms. Smith asked to receive them for the Planning Board, also. Ms. Abrams offered to e-mail Ms. Chauvey the e-mail address for the Conservation Committee. Ms. Chauvey confirmed she will e-mail the both the agenda and notice for both the Planning Board and ZBA meetings going forward. Ms. Smith asked if the Planning Board could recess a public hearing if the Conservation Committee had requested to view a plat, however, the plat was not brought
in until meeting night. Mr. Seaverns stated that they could.
Ms. Beauchamp suggested that the Planning Board considered inviting a Conservation Committee member to be an alternate on the Planning Board.
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION DISCUSSION:
Ms. Beauchamp explained that on the copies distributed to the Board, the changes in red were from the first application workshop meeting and the changes in blue were from the second. She stated that the website address had been added and the signature box had been changed to read, “Each Land Owners Signature,” on page one. Ms. Beauchamp questioned the site walk liability issue on page two of the proposed application. Ms. Bonser stated that Mr. Brown, Town Administrator, had contacted the Town’s Attorney and was advised that there should not be a quorum of members on a site walk and that the Town is only liable for Town Representatives, which leaves the property owner liable for abutters and the public. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the sentence, “The public is also free to attend the scheduled site
walk,” should be removed. The members of the Board agreed it should. Ms. Beauchamp noted another change on page two indicating the applicant’s responsibility for the abutter list. Mr. Seaverns, using the example of a recent case, stated he felt it was wasteful of time to have to recess meetings because abutters were not notified and asked if there might be a better way. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it could become part of the third party review. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the applicant is only required to look in the books in the Town Office for abutter records and if those books are not correct, it is not the responsibility of the applicant. She stated that the books need to be maintained regularly. Ms. Chauvey asked why it had to be a third party review. Ms. Beauchamp pointed out that even if the abutters list is verified, the application can still place responsibility on the applicant. All Board Members concurred. Ms. Mills pointed out that if the list was going to be
changed by someone “in-house”, it would then become Town responsibility and she felt the applicant should be notified that a change was going to be made. All Board Members agreed. Mr. Smith suggested that if verification of the abutters list turns up a change, instead of making the change, the notice be sent to both addresses. Ms. Beauchamp stated that could be done and the applicant could be charged for both. Ms. Chauvey stated that she did not mind verifying the abutters list moving forward. She stated she will also inform the applicant that the application will be reviewed within the next few days and they will be notified if anything is missing.
Moving on to the application again, page three had no changes. On page four, Box 4.2 of the flow chart had been changed to read, “The PB reads Department Head comments, then opens the public hearing. …” Mr. Smith asked if he should open the public hearing prior to reading the department head comments. Ms. Beauchamp explained the process for an application is that the Board reviews the application for completeness and acceptance, then holds the public hearing, then deliberates, then votes. She stated that the Chair should open the public meeting for the application at the beginning and once the application has been accepted, the Chair should then, time allowing, open the public hearing.
Ms. Beauchamp indicated paragraph three on page 5, noting that she had added, “…and findings directly to the Board, Applicant’s agent, the Applicant, and any others, as applicable.” Mr. Seaverns did not want the actual fees listed in the application. Ms. Beauchamp suggested leaving a blank line where the dollar amount would go. The person completing the application could then refer to the Fee Schedule. Ms. Chauvey made a recommendation that the asterisk and note regarding RCCD charges be removed from the recording fee. The Board agreed. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the escrow account estimate was going to be changed to $250. Ms. Bonser asked if that needs to go for a public hearing. Ms. Beauchamp stated that third party billing is in the Regulations, however, this is a fee
so she is not sure. Ms. Bonser recommended she check with Mr. Brown, Town Administrator. Mr. Seaverns suggested that the applicants set up their escrow accounts with the Planning Board Secretary, who will then submit it to the Bookkeeper. Ms. Beauchamp stated she would make the change. Mr. Seaverns clarified that subdivision fees are $200 plus $200 per lot for all lots (not just new lots).
Turning to page 6, Ms. Beauchamp stated that Heidi Carlson from the fire department responded to her request for input of the Impact Assessment form. Ms. Carlson had suggested a number six under Roads, Traffic, Snow Removal. Ms. Bonser wanted cul-de-sacs removed since they are not permitted. Mr. Smith suggested, “Estimate the impact to the school system” for number two under the school section. Ms. Carlson made a recommendation for a number five and six under Policy and Fire. Ms. Mills suggested removing Utilities from the Impact Statement. Mr. Seaverns stated he would like to see D changed to something regarding the impact if a community well is established for a development. Mr. Gylfphe asked about non-delineated flood hazards, such as the Pawtuckaway Lake Dams. Ms. Beauchamp
stated that was a good question.
Discussion of the application was ended until the next workshop meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mail was distributed.
Ms. Chauvey asked the Board about scheduling meetings for January, February, and March. The Board stated they would like to stay with the first and third Wednesday of the month. Ms. Bonser asked if anyone had a list of the important Town dates (for posting changes, etc.). Ms. Beauchamp stated we did have a schedule and asked Ms. Chauvey to bring copies to the next meeting. She stated that the Town still had time to schedule and post meetings if there were going to be changes to the Zoning Ordinances, however, they would need to decide if they were going to make changes soon. Ms. Bonser stated that she wanted to revisit the idea of capping commercial building size. Mr. Gylfphe stated the only problem with that is that until Nottingham has a more substantial infrastructure, we would not attract any major
retail business. Ms. Bonser stated that she would like to see the Town’s Ordinances and Regulations compliment each other this year. Ms. Beauchamp stated that there is no deadline for Subdivision or Site Regulations, however there is for Zoning, so if the Board concentrated on getting the Zoning Ordinances to read the way they wanted, Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations could be done immediately following the Town Meeting. Ms. Bonser stated the sign ordinance still needed to be corrected. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Town Council had said that did not need to go to March vote, it could just be changed in the Ordinance. Ms. Bonser responded that she thought he had said the new ordinance was the people’s will, but she didn’t remember him saying it did not need be on the Town vote. Ms. Chauvey stated she would pull the minutes of the meeting in which the discussion took place.
Ms. Mills asked what needs to be done for the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Beauchamp stated there was confusion over the buildable area. Ms. Bonser stated she is opposed to making any change to Zoning that would restrict septic systems from the 50-foot setback. She stated she believes the 10-foot setback set by the State is adequate. Ms. Bonser stated that Article IV Section F needs to be removed from the Subdivision Regulation to straighten the issue out. Ms. Beauchamp polled the members of the Planning Board as to whether or not they were ok with the buildable area in the Zoning Ordinance as is. Ms. Bonser, Mr. Harding, and Mr. Gylfphe responded in the affirmative. Ms. Mills stated she is not ok with it. Mr. Smith stated he thought the issue was clarification, not change. Mr. Seaverns stated
that the Planning Board needed to understand as a group the definition of buildable area. Ms. Bonser reiterated that confusion is caused by IV F. Mr. Seaverns asked her to explain. Ms. Mills stated she is not comfortable with this. Ms. Bonser stated that this has been the practice all along and there has never been a problem. Ms. Mills stated that she feels the Board can start making a difference in the future now. Ms. Bonser stated it is too restrictive on land owners to try to fit a house, well, and septic in a 100’ X 100’ foot area. She stated that large land owners are wondering why they are holding on to their land when each year they loose more rights to it.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
