NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD JUNE 21, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. David Wright, Economic Development Director
Mr. Peter Landry
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
WORKSHOP:
The Chair called the workshop to order at 7:15pm.
The Chair asked Mr. Curry to sit for Ms. Jones.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept the Planning Board minutes from June 7, 2006. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Ms. Mills, Mr. Smith, Ms. Bonser and Mr. Harding voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry abstained from the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with 1 abstention.
Ms. Mills said that she had some concerns she would like to address. She said that she had spoken with Ms. Beauchamp after the previous meeting and she said that according to the "Right to Know" law the applicant should get notification that there is something missing in their application. Mr. Seaverns said that the conversation was not about whether the applicant should be notified but about doing it before the Planning Board even opened their hearing on the application. Ms. Beauchamp said that she was required to send any review she did to the applicants. Mr. Landry noted that acceptance of an application by the Planning Board merely started a clock. Mr. Smith said that at an acceptance hearing the applicant could potentially have everything they needed for an approval. Ms. Mills said that the
Planning Board should have acceptance application hearings so the applicant would know if the Planning Board had questions they needed answered. Mr. Seaverns said that there was a maximum of 21 days that the Planning Board had to work with. He said that Ms. Beauchamp would do a review of plans and the applicant would get it the night of the hearing. He said that in that case he did nott see the point of having an application acceptance hearing. He said that the Planning Board could have a consultation phase but he said that he felt that would take too much time. Ms. Bonser asked if Ms. Beauchamp could call applicants if something was missing from their application. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board should make all information available to everyone including abutters. Mr. Seaverns said that people on the Planning Board did not want to start doing acceptance hearings. Ms. Bonser said that going in front of the Planning Board was a
very intimidating process for some applicants. Mr. Wright said that not very many people came before the Planning Board with concept plans. Ms. Bonser asked who paid for the review of plans by Ms. Beauchamp. Mr. Seaverns said that the applicant paid for it.
Ms. Mills said that she thought applicants should have to provide 3 sets of address labels as part of their applications. She said that she was also concerned about pen and ink changes being made to the mylar plan. She said that the idea of an applicant making a pen and ink change to the mylar plan and then recording it themselves made her very uncomfortable. She said that the Planning Board should follow their own rules consistently. She said that she also had a concern about the suggestion that applications be put into a lock box when they came into the office. She said that people should sign and date a piece of paper when they brought in their plans. Mr. Seaverns said that he did not like the idea of a lock box either because there would not be a record but he said that without opening the lock box on
one day each month than the result would be what they did now.
Ms. Mills said that she was not sure about the procedure but she was still concerned about the ice cream shop. She said that the Planning Board needed to be consistent. She said that they needed to research every business in the area and see if there had been other changes of use which had not gone in front of the Planning Board. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board attempted to be fair and consistent when people came before them but he said that people needed to come before them. Mr. Curry said that he agreed on the consistency issue. He said that sometimes the Planning Board was not consistent where there were disagreements. Mr. Landry asked what exactly was the problem that the Planning Board was trying to solve here. Mr. Seaverns talked about the current application process and he said that
it did not help the applicant. He explained his thoughts about having an acceptance hearing. He said that the Planning Board currently did a consultation process with applicants the entire time. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board did the work for the applicants and they spent too much time on too many applications. He also noted that the Planning Board waived things all the time and he didn't like that. Mr. Smith said that they needed to clarify their regulations. Mr. Landry asked how the Planning Board would decide where they drew the line on some things if they didn't waive regulations for people. He said that people would also be afraid to check N/A on the application checklist if having an incomplete application could set them back a month. Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board needed to redo their application so everything on the checklist would be applicable. Mr. Landry said that the Planning Board needed to determine
their minimum requirements. Mr. Curry said that applicants also needed to provide reasons for why they wanted waivers.
Ms. Bonser said that the Planning Board needed to discuss the Planner agreement. Ms. Beauchamp said that she had 2 new copies with the changes that Mr. Brown had made. Mr. Curry said that he wanted to comment on the agreement. He said that by default all work should belong to the town unless they wanted to give it away instead of as it was currently stated where all work would belong to Strafford Regional Planning Commission unless the town wanted it. He said that his other concern was how the Planning Board wanted to spend their money. He asked if they should change the order of the priority tasks. He noted that the previous year the Board had stated priorities and they had not followed them as planned.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to approve the Services agreement with Strafford Regional Planning Commission regarding a Town Planner with the changes made by the Planning Board and Mr. Brown subject to the approval of the Board of Selectmen and the Town Attorney. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board processes could become convoluted when there were court cases involved. He said that the Planning Board should be able to table applications until lawsuits were through court. Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board had talked to their attorney about that and he had told them they could put such a provision in their regulations if they wanted. Ms. Beauchamp said that the Planning Board should not get involved in civil cases. Mr. Seaverns said that Mr. Teague, the attorney had told the Planning Board they needed to decide what would qualify under such a regulation. Ms. Beauchamp said that she would research what other towns did. Mr. Seaverns said that the applicant could refuse to renew the 65 day clock and so could the Planning Board. Mr. Wright said his
concern was that applications would get automatically approved because the court thought the Planning Board should have approved them. Ms. Beauchamp said that applicants could not sue the Planning Board until they made a decision. Mr. Seaverns said that applicants could sue the Planning Board whenever they wanted. Mr. Curry also noted concern that a judge could rule in favor of an applicant because it had been over 65 days. Ms. Mills said that the Planning Board should talk to their attorney or to the Municipal Association attorney. Mr. Seaverns said that he would get some words together to present.
Mr. Seaverns mentioned site walks and asked whether they should be included in the Rules of Procedure like in the example from Deering that Ms. Beauchamp had provided. Ms. Bonser said that she had questions about the quorum rules they used in Deering. She said that the Rules of Procedure should cite RSA's whenever possible. She also discussed subcommittees. Mr. Seaverns asked if the Planning Board wanted a subcommittee section in their Rules of Procedure. Ms. Bonser said that was a good idea. She asked if the Planning Board needed to have 2 hearings to change their Rules of Procedure. Mr. Seaverns noted that within the current Rules of Procedure there was a procedure for changing it. Mr. Smith said that something should be put into the Rules of Procedure to address subcommittees. Mr.
Seaverns said that there should also be something in the Rules of Procedure about site walks. He said that the Planning Board had the right to do a site walk on any application that came before them. Ms. Bonser asked if application cut off dates should be in the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Seaverns said that if such dates were adopted by the Planning Board then yes. Ms. Mills suggested that their Rules of Procedure could include Powers and Duties. Mr. Seaverns noted that the site walk requirement should be a part of the Site Plan Review regulations. Ms. Mills cited page 297 of the RSA book. Mr. Seaverns said that when a person signed an application they gave any necessary town agents access to their property.
Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board needed to address the letter from the Building Inspector. Mr. Seaverns discussed the Gerrior Drive subdivision. He said that there were telephone poles where they had planned to build the road and the telephone company would not remove the poles for 2 months. He said that the telephone poles were not on the site plan. He said that his suggestion was that the developer could build a driveway until they could build a road. Ms. Bonser said that the developer of Gerrior Drive could come and talk to the whole Planning Board.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the Planning Board write the Building Inspector and say that he could give 2 Certificates of Occupancy to Gerrior Drive for a shared driveway until the road was completed or bonded.
Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board could request an update to the letter of credit. He said that the Board of Selectmen and the Building Inspector were responsible for Certificates of Occupancy. He said that the plan allowed for driveways. He said that a driveway was being built in this case and not a road. He said that 2 houses did not require a roadway.
Mr. Curry withdrew his motion.
Ms. Bonser said that she would talk to the Building Inspector. Mr. Seaverns said that he did not think that was a good idea and he suggested that Mr. Smith talk to the Building Inspector.
Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board would send a letter to Brooks Crossing about the silt fencing. He also suggested that they ask the Building Inspector look at Dunbarton regarding the same problem. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board letter should inform Brooks Crossing that a problem exists and that they planned to talk to the Rockingham County Conservation District. He said that the Planning Board would get an estimate for the cost of another inspection of the property and note that the town needed the money in advance of any further inspections being done.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
