NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD FEBRUARY 22, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Jon Caron
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Scott Curry
Mr. Bill Booth
Ms. Sandra Jones
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. David Garvey
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10pm.
MINUTES:
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of January 24, 2006. Mr. Booth seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Booth, Mr. Smith, Ms. Bonser and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Jones abstained from the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with 1 abstention.
Mr. Curry made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of February 7, 2006. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion.
Some Board members said that they were not ready to vote on those minutes.
Mr. Curry withdrew his motion.
PUBLIC HEARING-HATCH LLA:
The Chair opened the public hearing on the Hatch/Drew Lot Line Adjustment at 7:17pm.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Craig Saloman
Mr. Saloman gave the Board new plans and waiver requests. He also told the Board that plans from the Faith lot had been previously recorded. Mr. Smith read the waiver requests. The applicant asked for a topography waiver and a waiver from showing all the buildable area. Mr. Smith noted that the waiver request needed to cite the RSA's it wanted waived. Mr. Curry said that the contours were in VA3 of the Subdivision Regulations and the buildable area was in VA9. He asked if the number of the plan that had been recorded of the Faith property was referenced on this plan. Mr. Saloman said that it was referenced as Note #2. Mr. Gylfphe said that he would recommend that anyone who planned to build on this lot buy flood insurance even though it was not required by FEMA. Mr. Smith said that he had
added the RSA numbers to the waiver requests.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board accept the waiver requests for topography and buildable area. Ms. Jones seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the Hatch/Drew Lot Line Adjustment. Ms. Jones seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Curry noted that the plan did not have a wetlands stamp. He said that the Board should have asked for a waiver for that. He regretted that he had not caught the error sooner.
ADVICE-MARK HARDING:
Mr. Harding said that his son had asked him if he could build a house on his father's property. He said that he had 3.68 acres and he would need 4 to subdivide. He also said that he did not have enough frontage. He explained his plan about converting his barn into a home and possibly building an inlaw apartment. Mr. Curry said that an apartment needed to be attached to the main house and it needed to be less than 420 square feet. Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Harding wanted an apartment that was larger than 420 square feet than he needed to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Bonser noted that the taxes would reflect the size of the apartment. She said that 420 square feet was large for an inlaw apartment.
SHANNON ESTATES BOND REDUCTION:
The Chair called to order the discussion of the Shannon Estates Bond Reduction at 7:45pm.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Brad Jones
Mr. Smith said that according to the engineer the only thing missing was a lock for the cistern manhole cover. Mr. Jones said that he had spoken to the Fire Department about that and they had said that they would take care of replacing that lock.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the Planning Board accept the bond reduction request from Shannon Estates and reduce the bond to $0 based on the letter received from the Rockingham County Conservation District. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
ADVICE-O.R. GOOCH AND SONS:
At 7:50pm the Chair opened discussion regarding O.R. Gooch and Sons business. Mr. Smith read the letter from the business asking if they could proceed with putting up a large shed to use for storing wood. Mr. Curry noted that they were talking about putting up a permanent structure instead of just having a wood pile on their property. Ms. Bonser said that some companies, like O.R. Gooch had been in Nottingham a long time and did not have site plans. Ms. Copeland asked if O.R Gooch and Sons were intensifying their use of the property. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board did not want to discourage businesses but they wanted to do this the way that the law stated. Ms. Bonser asked if the Planning Board could ask O.R. Gooch and Sons for a hand drawn plan showing where on the property the structure would be
built. Ms. Copeland said that the Planning Board needed to be consistent. She said that the standard for grandfathering was 10%. Ms. Jones said that the Planning Board needed to look at local existing businesses the same way they looked at businesses wanting to come into town. Mr. Booth said that he did not think this changed the existing use. He said that O.R. Gooch and Sons was already storing wood in this area on their property, they just wanted to cover the wood.
Ms. Bonser made a motion that the Planning Board write to O.R. Gooch and Sons and tell them that if they would provide the Planning Board with a hand drawn plan of the property that included as much information as possible than the Planning Board would consider a site plan review waiver.
Ms. Copeland said that the Planning Board needed to have documentation on file. She said that some of this could be done with a digital camera. She said that the Planning Board could ask the Building Inspector to look at this and confirm that O.R. Gooch and Sons would be using this for the existing use. Mr. Smith suggested that the Planning Board write the letter but that they did not need waiver requests yet. He said that the Board would make a decision after they got the sketch what their next step would be. He said that the sketch would need to show setbacks since O.R. Gooch and Sons wanted to build a building. Ms. Jones said that the building would need to meet the current setbacks. Mr. Curry read from the regulations and he said that the Planning Board needed to be consistent. Mr. Smith
said that the buildings on the property and their setbacks should be shown in the drawing. He asked whether the other Board members thought this discussion should be noticed to the abutters of O.R. Gooch and Sons. Mr. Curry said that he thought so. Mr. Gylfphe said that he thought O.R. Gooch and Sons should talk to the Fire Chief just to make sure the Chief did not think the structure they were building would be a fire hazard. Ms. Jones said that the Board really needed to be consistent and deal with this situation the way they dealt with other situations. Ms. Bonser said that this situation was not like a business moving into town. She said that this was an existing business and an existing use of the property. Mr. Booth asked if a person would need to go through site plan review to build a garage. Ms. Jones said no but she said that commercial use of land was different than residential use. Mr. Smith said that building this
structure would not encroach on other people's property. He said that the Planning Board did not have an application process for this situation. Mr. Gylfphe said that the Planning Board needed more information in order to decide on a course of action in this case. Ms. Jones noted that O.R. Gooch and Sons had existed before there was commercial business in Nottingham. Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board would ask O.R Gooch and Sons for more information and then they would decide how to proceed further. He said that if the Planning Board decided to have a full hearing than they would notify the abutters. He said that the Planning Board would wait and make that decision when they got more information. Mr. Curry said that he did not think the Planning Board needed to vote against allowing this structure to be built, he said that he just wanted to make sure the process was consistent.
MORE MINUTES:
Mr. Curry made a motion that the Planning Board approve the minutes from February 7, 2006. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
MAIL AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Board reviewed their mail and made any necessary announcements.
WORKSHOP ON DEFINITIONS:
Ms. Jones said that she thought the Planning Board should go through the definitions one by one. Ms. Copeland said that the definition for abutter was covered by state law. She said that the entire definition did not need to be included in the town regulations. Mr. Smith said that the definitions in the subdivision regulations and the definitions in the site plan regulations didn't match. He suggested that they put the site plan definition of major subdivision into the subdivision regulations and add the wording about dwelling units. Ms. Bonser suggested that the definitions of minor subdivision and major subdivision should be combined. Ms. Jones said that if something was labeled minor than it really should be minor. Ms. Copeland said that the Board could do it however they wanted as long as they
were consistent. Ms. Bonser said that Planning Board needed to take away the vagueness from this issue.
Ms. Bonser made a motion that the Planning Board accept for public hearing the revised definitions of major and minor subdivisions. Ms. Jones seconded the motion.
Ms. Bonser revised her motion to state that the Planning Board remove the definition of subdivision from their regulations and replace that with their revised definitions of major and minor subdivisions while moving the definitions from the site plan regulations to the subdivision regulations.
Ms. Jones made a motion that the Planning Board add their revised definitions to their subdivision regulations. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Jones made a motion that the Planning Board remove their current definition of "abutter" from their regulations and use the state definition instead. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion.
Mr. Curry noted RSA 672:3.
Ms. Jones withdrew her motion.
Ms. Jones made a motion to put into the site plan regulations and subdivision regulations language stating that readers should see RSA 672:3 for the state definition of abutter. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Curry made a motion to adopt the other definitions as written minus the note of "future review" to the subdivision and site plan review regulations replacing any definitions already used in those documents. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Jones made a motion that the Planning Board hold a public hearing on the definitions on March 8, 2006. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
MORE MINUTES:
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Planning Board approve the minutes from February 1, 2006. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Jones made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35pm. Mr. Gylfphe 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
| 
