NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD FEBRUARY 1, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Jon Caron
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectman's Representative Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Scott Curry
Mr. Bill Booth
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
Mr. David Garvey
Mr. Skip Seaverns
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05pm.
DISCUSSION OF REGULATIONS:
Mr. Curry said that he had run for the Planning Board on the platform that he would help the Planning Board do an overhaul of their regulations. He said that the Planning Board had been unable to make a lot of progress on that goal over the past year because they had been busy with big cases. He said that the Planning Board had done the best they could. He said that he was unsure he wanted to vote on anything at the last minute. He said that he was impressed by the hard work that had been done over the past week but he said that the Board had not had much time to comment and he objected to making last minute decisions on something so important. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board was proposing changes which would be heard at 2 public hearings. She said that they did not have a choice.
Mr. Gylfphe said that there were only a few large lots left in Nottingham. He said that people would need to buy multiple lots in order to build large subdivisions.
Mr. Smith read out loud the proposed Residential Development Timing and Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Gylfphe said that it was good but he said that they should add a definition for cluster development. He suggested that for every 2 acres that were put into conservation the developer would get one lot to build on or he suggested that of open space 25% needed to be uplands. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board could call another public hearing at their next public hearing and amend their proposed regulations. Mr. Gylfphe said that he thought the Planning Board could do a simple cluster ordinance to entice developers to conserve land. Mr. Seaverns said that the public would look at this document. He said that the Planning Board could add things if they wanted to give direction to the public. He said that
if the warrant passed than the Planning Board needed something to put in the regulations. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board could amend the subdivision regulations, not the zoning regulations. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board had jurisdiction over innovative land use controls. Mr. Gylfphe suggested that the Planning Board drop the definitions entirely from the proposed ordinance and put them in the subdivision regulations. Ms. Bonser agreed. Mr. Bock asked the Board to explain #6 in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Seaverns said that the only use he could think of which would apply to #6 was a road. Ms. Bonser asked if the disclaimer would work. Mr. Seaverns said that the state law said there needed to be an application and review process. Mr. Curry said that this was relevant to the Capital Improvement Plan. He said that town growth would help them justify these changes. He said that they needed to sell these
ideas to the public. Ms. Bonser said that the point of this was to create a compromise between the Planning Board and developers. Mr. Gylfphe said that this ordinance did not limit developers. Mr. Curry said that this proposed ordinance restricted the developers to when they could develop land, not how much land they could develop. Mr. Seaverns discussed who should create a phasing plan. He said that it should be the developer. Ms. Bonser said that there should be give and take between the Planning Board and developers. Mr. Seaverns said that the proposed ordinance document did not require enough. He said that if the Planning Board wanted to have a phasing plan than they should put it in their ordinance. Mr. Smith said that he wanted to make sure the Planning Board did not lose authority. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board would not be giving up authority by asking developers to make a phasing plan. He said
that the Planning Board could comment and say no to any phasing plan but he said that there needed to be a phasing plan and he said that the Planning Board could not defend this document. Mr. Smith wanted to know how many developers would come to the Planning Board without a phasing plan. Mr. Seaverns noted that the need for a phasing plan would be in the subdivision regulations if the Board decided to make it a requirement.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the proposed Residential Development Timing and Phasing Ordinance as amended by the Planning Board. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-1.
Mr. Curry stated that he had voted against the motion because of his previously stated objections.
Mr. Gylfphe read his proposed sign ordinance and noted what he would remove from the zoning ordinance. Mr. Smith said that he thought everything regarding signs should be removed from the zoning ordinance. Ms. Bonser said that there should be a grandfather clause for landmark signs. Mr. Gylfphe noted that some of the portable signs around town were in disrepair. Mr. Seaverns asked if the Planning Board wanted to control all the signs in town. Mr. Smith said no. Mr. Seaverns asked what signs the Planning Board did want to control. Mr. Smith said that the Board wanted to control new people coming to town who wanted to put up signs. Mr. Seaverns said that it was not a good idea to do a grandfather clause for signs. He noted that a lot of the current signs were not legal. He said that
people with illegal signs could go in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Mr. Smith said that it would not be fair to people who had followed the sign ordinance if the Planning Board changed the ordinance. He read another proposed sign ordinance out loud. Mr. Gylfphe said that there should be no moving computer signs. Mr. Curry said that the term for that was LED signs. Mr. Smith said that the glare question needed to be addressed. He said that currently a sign could be lit from any direction. Ms. Bonser said that she had low voltage lighting on the bottom of a stone sign. She asked why the ordinance stated that signs could not be lit from the bottom and she asked why signs could only be lit during business hours. Mr. Seaverns said that neighbors did not want signs on all night. Mr. Garvey noted that the Economic Development Committee would want signs on all night to advertise businesses. Mr. Smith said that he
did not want glare from signs to bother people. A member of the audience said that the Master Plan talked about preserving the rural character of their town. She said that the Planning Board needed to take that into consideration. She said that there was only 1 retail business on Route 4. Mr. Seaverns asked about the lighting ordinance. Mr. Gylfphe said that was referenced in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Curry suggested that the Planning Board add A-N from the sign ordinance that Ms. Copeland had created to the sign ordinance that Mr. Smith had just read. Mr. Seaverns said that there were currently no permits required for signs. He said that if the Planning Board was going to impose restrictions that certain signs must be taken down after 90 days than they needed to think about who would keep track of the 90 days. Mr. Curry asked the rest of the Planning Board what they thought about time limits. Mr. Smith said that he
would prefer the Planning Board specify a time limit. Mr. Seaverns said that the town either needed to make people get permits for signs or they needed to specify temporary signs. He said that currently signs were considered structures and needed to be within the setback. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board needed to discuss whether they wanted a grandfather clause or not. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board needed to have permits for signs if they wanted to keep track of what signs were in town. Mr. Smith said that he did not think they should have a grandfather clause. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board did not know how many signs were around town. He said that if they did not make people get permits for signs than they would not know. Mr. Smith said that other than temporary signs he could only think of 2 reasons to have signs. Mr. Seaverns said that the town should not have people get permits for signs.
The Planning Board discussed banners and felt that people should not have to get permission to hang a banner. They also noted the importance of political signs.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to accept the amended version of the sign ordinance that Mr. Smith had read earlier that evening. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. Ms. Bonser, Mr. Booth, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Gylfphe voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-1.
Mr. Curry said that he was voting against this motion because of his previously stated objections.
Mr. Smith said that everyone had a different definition of junk. He read out loud the definition of junk that he was suggesting be adopted.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to approve the definition of junk that Mr. Smith had just read.
Ms. Bonser said that people were using the current definition of junk against one another. Mr. Seaverns said that people would use the new definition against each other even more. Mr. Booth noted that no matter what they were materials to be used at an unspecified future date would not be considered junk. Mr. Bock said that anything that got reported needed to be dealt with. Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board could discuss the definition further at the public hearing.
Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Ms. Bonser, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-1.
Mr. Curry said that he had voted against the motion because of his previously stated objections.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50pm. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
