NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 20, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Skip Seaverns, Vice-Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Ms. Gail Mills Mr. Dave Smith, Chair
Mr. Mary Bonser Mr. Mark Harding
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Jonathan Witham, Resident
Mr. Peter Landry, Landry Surveying
Mr. Robert Jaquith, Greater Seacoast Habitat for Humanity
Mr. Frank Murphy, Greater Seacoast Habitat for Humanity
Mr. Dan Mather, Land Owner
Mr. Thomas Sweeney, Building Committee
Mr. John Decker, CIP
Ms. Barb Pratt, Abutter
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectman
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE:
Mr. Decker handed out drafts of the two charts that go in the Town Report. He explained that Table 5 is what is requested and Table 6 represents the actual expenses and how items will be expended out over the next six years. He said what is missing is how some of the items are going to be funded, such as Mulligan Forest. He stated the assumption is by Bond but it is not listed, yet. Ms. Bonser asked if the fire station was on the list. Mr. Decker replied that it is. Ms. Bonser asked him if the whole $950,000 was included in the 2007 figures. Mr. Sweeney replied that you have to show it that way in the first year. Mr. Decker explained that on Table 5 it will remain as a total, however, it will be extended on Table 6. Ms. Bonser thanked Mr. Decker for his work. Mr. Seaverns inquired
about costs for things that are ongoing from previous years. Mr. Decker responded that those would be on Table 6.
The Board thanked Mr. Decker for his update. Mr. Decker left the meeting.
PUBLIC MEETING – NOTTINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT – 245 STAGE ROAD - MAP 29 LOT 12 - CASE #P06-17-SUB:
The Vice-Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-17-SUB, Map 29 Lot 12 at 7:20 PM.
Mr. Landry stated this 3-acre lot is the proposed location of the new fire station. He stated there is a wet area on the corner of Priest and Stage Roads. Mr. Landry noted the proposed driveway for access off of Rte. 152 will have a wetland impact. He stated there is 806’ of frontage and 3.14 total acres. Mr. Landry stated the applicant has received DES approval pending dredge & fill and septic approval pending subdivision approval. He stated there is a State driveway permit for the proposed driveway on Rte. 152. He stated there are more than two test pits on the lot and a proposed well is shown. He stated there is an additional proposed driveway onto Priest Road and he believes they have received the permit for that also. The building will be a drive-through.
Ms. Bonser noted that the 4K area was shown in the 50’ setback area and asked if it could be moved. Mr. Landry stated it could be moved but it serves no purpose to move it. Mr. Landry stated that it is his understanding that a septic can be within 10’ of a lot line. Ms. Bonser agreed.
Mr. Gylfphe inquired about the flood status. Mr. Landry read from the plat that no part of the proposed lot is within the federally designated flood area. Mr. Landry stated that would be above the 100-year flood zone.
Ms. Bonser invited Mr. Sweeney to display the site plan.
Mr. Landry wrapped up stating that the monuments are set, the State permits have been initiated, and the Board is welcome to a site-walk. He stated that the applicant was looking for acceptance on their application tonight.
Ms. Mills asked if the septic could be moved into the area that does not include the 50’ setback. Mr. Landry stated that he thought the fire station would need to be redesigned to accommodate that. Ms. Bonser stated that she was aware the fire station was going in very snugly and, therefore, had spoken with the Building Inspector on this matter. She read a letter from Paul Colby, Building Inspector for the record. Mr. Colby’s letter stated that he has not seen any problems with septic systems being within the 10’ setback required by the State. Ms. Bonser stated it is clear there is not a problem. Ms. Mills asked Ms. Beauchamp to clarify the issue at hand. Ms. Beauchamp explained that the Subdivision Regulations state that septics will conform to the 50’ setbacks set by Town
Ordinances. Ms. Bonser stated she was going to propose a change to the Subdivision Regulations so they will be consistent with Zoning. Mr. Sweeny stated it is significant to go that far different from what the State feels is reasonable. Ms. Bonser stated that restriction has not been placed on anyone in the past. Mr. Sweeney stated he did not think it would be possible on this site.
Mr. Seaverns asked the applicant if he had a copy of the State driveway permit, as there was not one in the file. Mr. Sweeney stated that he does have a copy but did not bring it. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board needed to obtain copies. Mr. Seaverns asked if it was referenced on the plan and Mr. Landry stated he would add in Note 3(C).
Mr. Seaverns asked Mr. Landry if he was aware of any plans to straighten out Priest Road, to make it more perpendicular to Stage Road. Mr. Landry stated he had not. Mr. Seaverns asked if a physical monument has been placed to reflect the radius of that corner. Mr. Landry stated it had not because it puts it in the traveled way. Mr. Bock reported that the Fire Chief has looked at the section of terrain coming out of Priest Road and has moved for clearance, stating it is not significant. Mr. Bock also stated that the lighting for the fire station will be taken care of.
Mr. Seaverns asked if the applicant needed acceptance tonight, the problem being that the Planning Board did not have copies of the permits or applications. Mr. Landry stated he hoped to get everything in order so that it can be completed when Mr. Sweeney returns. Mr. Seaverns stated there is not enough material present to accept the application. He stated the Board required copies of the applications for the State permits.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to continue the hearing for the subdivision application from Nottingham School District, Map 29 Lot 12 Case #P06-17-SUB until January 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Bonser made a motion for no review by Strafford Regional Planning Commission on Case #P06-17-SUB. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
PUBLIC MEETING – GREATER SEACOAST HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR DANIEL FRED MATHER - MAP 16 LOT 31 - CASE #P06-16-SUB:
The Vice-Chair opened the public meeting on Case #P06-16-SUB, Map 16 Lot 31 at 7:50 PM.
Mr. Landry introduced Mr. Robert Jaquith from Greater Seacoast Habitat for Humanity (GSHFH).
Mr. Jaquith gave a history of the project to the Board Members stating that GSHFH had been contacted last February by Mr. Wright, Nottingham’s Economic Development Officer at the time, to see if they would be interested in coming to Nottingham to finish a house for a gentleman who had been injured on the job. He reported that GSHFH met with Mr. Wright and Mr. Colby, the Building Inspector, and subsequently completed all appropriate paperwork for the project. GSHFH had their own inspector come out to give them an estimate of what it would take to complete the job. Mr. Jaquith reported that after discussions with their inspector, they did not have the means to complete the project. Over the summer, they held a golf outing fundraiser and raised enough money to finish the work.
Mr. Jaquith reported they have done a considerable amount of work, including a septic approved by the State of New Hampshire, connection to the well, a new roof, fixed drainage problems both inside and out, and repaired the cracks in the foundation. He stated that other than siding, they are ready to move inside.
Mr. Jaquith stated that GSHFH is requesting a postponement without prejudice because the main objective is to complete the house for Mr. Mather and they do not want too many projects going at once. He reported that they have more work for Mr. Landry to do and that they are not prepared at this time. Ms. Bonser clarified that the applicant does not wish to withdraw the application, they simply wish to postpone it. Mr. Mather stated that he thought they should withdraw the application because they need to go before the ZBA for variances. He stated that he appeared before the Planning Board in February requesting four lots and was told that he would have to have two State approved driveways and would have to go before the ZBA. Mr. Mather stated that when he started working with GSHFH he handed over all paperwork
for that process and a Zoning book, however, the only paperwork completed was the subdivision application. Mr. Seaverns stated that Attorney Boldt had called to request an extension until May. Ms. Bonser asked Mr. Mather if there was a reason he could not postpone instead of withdraw. Mr. Seaverns noted that to postpone an application that has not been accepted opens the door for anyone to submit an application at the end of the year to get in under the current rules and regulations when they have no intention of doing the work in the near future but do not want to risk zoning changes. Mr. Seaverns stated that he feels if the applicant wants to postpone until May, the application should be withdrawn, however, the Board could vote to postpone it at the applicant’s request.
Mr. Seaverns clarified that the submitted plan shows two lots that comply with current zoning. Ms. Bonser noted that the plans have the 4K area slightly in the 50’ setback area. Mr. Seaverns stated that this issue will arise over and over again until the rules have been changes. Ms. Bonser stated that it has to be pointed out to the Board the hardship that is created by trying to minimize the size of the buildable area with a setback that is unreasonable. Mr. Seaverns stated that is not what it does, however, the plan being reviewed meets the requirements that are in the subdivision regulations. He confirmed that there is more property that does not appear on the plat. Mr. Seaverns stated that a waiver would be required since a full plot of the property is required.
Ms. Beauchamp stated she would like to have a clean plan for her review. Mr. Seaverns stated she should note in her review anything that would make the application incomplete, including improper plans.
Mr. Seaverns asked Ms. Pratt if she wished to speak as an abutter. She stated she came to see what’s happening.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the hearing of GSHFH for Daniel Mather, Map 16 Lot 31, Case #P06-16-SUB, for acceptance and approval until February 7, 2007, at 7:15 PM. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
The applicant and property owner thanked the Board and left the meeting.
PUBLIC MEETING CONTINUANCE – RSL LAYOUT & DESIGN FOR BLUE FIN DEVELOPMENT - MAP 11 LOT 7 CASE #P06-09-SUB:
The Vice-Chair opened the public meeting on Case #P06-09-SUB, Map 1 Lot 70 at 9:20 PM
Mr. Seaverns stated that RSL had called earlier in the day to request a continuance since they have not received anything back on their second dredge and fill request. Ms. Bonser noted that we are way beyond the 65 day timeline and suggested getting a letter from RSL to document that the applicant has been requesting the continuances. Ms. Chauvey stated she would contact them.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to continue the hearing of RSL Layout & Design for Blue Fin Development, Map 11 Lot 7, Case #P06-09-SUB, for acceptance and final approval, to January 3, 2007, at 8:00 PM. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mail was distributed.
Ms. Bonser stated she would like the opportunity to speak about the buildable area and setbacks. She handed out copies of pertinent pages from both the Zoning Ordinances and the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Bonser read the Zoning Ordinance, VI A.1 and A.2 stating that these requirements in themselves are tough requirements to meet in Nottingham. She stated that the problem is caused by Section IV F in the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Bonser stated the reason for hiring a Planner is get all rules and regulations to compliment each other, not conflict. She stated the Zoning Ordinance has worked well, with no problems, for 20 years, but conflicts with the Subdivision Regulations. Her suggestion was to have a public hearing to remove the words ‘wells or septic facilities’ from the
Subdivision Regulations Section IV F. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed with Ms. Bonser that those words were not put into the Subdivision Regulations in error. Ms. Mills confirmed that Ms. Bonser wants to remove the 50’ setback requirement for wells and septics. Ms. Bonser confirmed. Ms. Mills stated that following the State setbacks has an effect on the abutter. Ms. Bonser stated that Nottingham’s Building Inspector has said there is not a problem with the State setbacks. Ms. Mills stated that is a fortunate thing, however, there are more and more houses being developed in Nottingham which could create a problem. Ms. Mills stated that she feels this could be a big issue for the smaller property owners and she has a problem with usurping rights or property owners. Ms. Bonser stated that Ms. Mills was currently usurping rights to the little guy by expecting that the property owner would be able to meet the 50’ setback
requirements. Ms. Mills stated that if a property owner puts their septic system 10’ from the lot line, it limits where the abutter puts their well. Mr. Bonser stated that the well has a 75 foot radius and usually that is placed within the lot lines. Mr. Seaverns stated there is no requirement that you have to keep you well within your lot. Mr. Bonser stated that you have to sign a waiver stating the well is too close to the line. Mr. Seaverns stated an easement is better because it goes with the property. Mr. Landry stated that in essence the well owner is giving up rights. He stated that normally, the well is kept on the lot. Ms. Beauchamp noted for the record that when the State approves septics, they only look at the lot in question. They do not look at the abutting properties and what natural restrictions might exist for them in regards to placing their wells.
Members of the Board agreed to pick this discussion up at another time.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
