NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 13, 2006
WORKSHOP MEETING
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Mary Bonser
Mr. Mark Harding
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the workshop to order at 7:20 PM.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM.
Ms. Bonser and Mr. Smith requested 9:00 PM.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Mills, Ms. Bonser and Mr. Harding voted in the affirmative. Mr. Seaverns voted in the negative. Motion passed 5-1.
PROPOSED NEW SUBDIVISION APPLICATION:
The Board reviewed the paragraph returned from Attorney Teague’s office regarding postponement of applications. Ms. Beauchamp inquired as to what was meant by, “deny with conditions” in the paragraph. Members of the Board were not sure. Ms. Bonser asked Mr. Seaverns to inquire about the wording, deny with condition. Mr. Seaverns stated he would. Mr. Smith suggested dropping the word Necessary from the title of that paragraph.
Mr. Smith requested to have, “…interested abutters…’” also removed from the site walk paragraph. Ms. Mills thought the Statute read that abutters have the right to go on the site walk. Mr. Smith stated that the abutters are allowed to go with the consent of the property owner. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she thought the Town had decided that they were going to include abutters but not the public. Ms. Bonser stated the property owner should be made aware that they can have the public sign limit of liability papers. Ms. Mills stated she wanted to check out the laws regarding abutters before they made a decision on the wording. Mr. Seaverns stated that the application is a contract between the applicant, property owner and the Town. It does not include abutters. Ms.
Mills stated she agreed with that statement. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed that she was going to remove, “…and interested abutters…” from the paragraph. All agreed.
Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Conservation Committee was going to be added in to the flow chart. Mr. Smith suggested including 1.2(a) & (b) with 1.1 and making the Conservation Committee 1.2. Ms. Beauchamp asked if seeing the Conservation Committee was going to be mandatory or a suggestion. Board Members felt minor subdivisions impacting wetlands and all major subdivisions should be required to go before the Conservation Committee prior to submitting an application. Mr. Seaverns asked Ms. Beauchamp to include 1.3 in with 1.1 also.
Ms. Chauvey asked if any other departments should be involved at this time. Mr. Seaverns stated he did not foresee another department needing input at this time but the Board may find different as they move forward.
Mr. Seaverns stated he felt step 3.3 is too early for the site walk. He stated it is usually held right before final approval. Mr. Seaverns stated he felt the site walk typically took place between 4.2 and 4.3. Ms. Beauchamp suggested step 4.3 (a) include a sentence stating, “The Planning Board may schedule a site walk.” Mr. Seaverns then suggested changing 4.3(a) to 4.3 and 4.3(b) to 4.4. And also, a wording change to 3.4 to include other third party charges that occur.
Moving on to the Impact Assessment Form, Ms. Mills stated she wanted to talk about impact fees. Based on Nottingham’s growth and the future need to expand the school and so forth, she feels there should be calculated impact fees. Mr. Smith stated that fees collected today would not benefit the school in five or six years; the fees need to be assigned to a specific item and used within a certain amount of time. Ms. Beauchamp stated she thought it was four years. Mr. Seaverns stated it was six. Mr. Seaverns stated that there are certain things in place already such as fire cisterns being required when a development is create, having roads build to Town specifications, but there is nothing in place for the new police cruisers or station. Ms. Chauvey stated she felt this was a worthy topic but not
something they could put in place prior to the March Town meeting deadline dates. Mr. Seaverns stated that his suggestion is to remove the Impact Assessment form from the application for the time being and use what we have. Ms. Chauvey stated she did not have a copy of the one being used. Mr. Smith provided her with a copy. Mr. Smith and Mr. Seaverns noted they did not have current copies of the Subdivision Regulations. Pages six and seven were removed from the proposed new application. Ms Beauchamp stated she would also change the completeness checklist Section III C to read, “See Attached.”
Ms. Beauchamp explained that everything that was not shaded on the completeness checklist must be completed. Continuing with the checklist, she stated she had added to some of them, however, there was nothing in the Subdivision Regulations about what she had added. Ms. Bonser asked her to keep a list to keep things consistent. Mr. Seaverns suggested removing the word “dimensions” from the completeness checklist Section V A-5 and changing the wording, “…features within 100-ft from the bounds,” to, “features 100-ft outside the bounds.” Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board if they wanted her to create a Section VI Article A-16 to the Regulations, requiring a note be added to the plan listing the holders of Conservation, Preservation, or Agricultural Preservation restrictions. They
responded in the affirmative. Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board if they wanted her to create a Section VI B-7 requiring drainage systems along roadways be plotted (including culverts across roads when major drain is on opposite side of the street).
On page 11, Compliance Checklist, Ms. Beauchamp suggested a change to Section V A-13 requiring a note be on the plat stating the status of the flood hazard zone. All agreed. Ms. Beauchamp explained that Heidi Carlson, Deputy Chief Nottingham Fire Department, had requested a change in Section V B-2(a)(2) from Road Agent to Building Inspector. The Building Inspector issues the permits. Ms. Beauchamp stated she would change Section VI A-3 to read, “A separate Certification of Monumentation is required from a Registered Land Surveyor, if the plan presented for signature does not contain a certification.”
Ms. Bonser suggested that the Board contact LGC regarding a mini lecture on things they are getting held up on. Ms. Beauchamp stated Tim Bates is great for ZBA lectures.
Mr. Smith set a workshop for December 27th for final review of the proposed application and other unfinished business time permitting. The Board Members agreed to set a public hearing for the adoption of the amended Subdivision Regulations on January 10, 2007.
Ms. Bonser asked why buildable area was on the agenda. Ms. Chauvey stated there still needs to be discussion on this issue. Ms. Bonser asked if it was about removing 4(F). Ms. Chauvey stated she did not know if that was what they would discuss, however, she needed clarification. There was no resolution at the end of the last discussion regarding the inconsistencies of this issue.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Chauvey informed the Board that she had received a call from Chris Boldt, Attorney and representative for Habitat for Humanity, who is on the December 20th, schedule requesting an extension. Mr. Seaverns stated that since the meeting had been noticed, someone would need to attend the meeting on the 20th. They could, at that time, ask for an extension.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
