NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Mark Harding Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Ms. Gail Mills
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Charles Brown, Town Administrator
Mr. Richard Ladd
Mr. Peter Landry
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Tom Sweeney
Mr. Reed Murphy
Mr. Jim Reagan
Mr. Craig Scott
Ms. Carrie Connors
Mr. Brian Connors
Mr. Whitney Scott
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board opened discussion on the minutes.
Mr. Seaverns stated that the motion regarding the taping of the meetings was not written as amended. Ms. Bonser passed a copy to Ms. Chauvey and asked that she add it to the motion in the minutes. Mr. Seaverns noted a typographical error to be changed. Ms. Bonser requested that the minutes of the Concrete Products hearing reflect Ms. Beauchamp disagreement with the Attorney Teague’s interpretation and, also, that it was agreed all fees would be refunded in this ZBA case. Mr. Smith questioned whether his conversation with Attorney Teague regarding Mr. Curry’s presence at a non-public session should be included. After discussion, Mr. Smith decided it would stay.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion that the Planning Board approve the minutes from August 30, 2006, as amended. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-MAP 17 LOTS 23, 24, & 25 - CASE #P06-10-LL - HOWARD:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-10-LL, Map 17 Lots 23, 24 & 25 at 7:25 PM.
Mr. Ladd appeared in representation of Lucille Howard, Trustee, for the design review, acceptance, and approval of a lot line adjustment. He stated that Mr. & Mrs. Howard own approximately 26.5 acres of land on Route 152 (Map 17 Lot 25), and that they had entered into an agreement with the previous owner of an abutting property (Map 17 Lots 23 & 24) to do a lot line adjustment giving her a piece of property totaling .88 acres behind her current property. Mr. Ladd said that even though the abutting property has since been acquired by new owners, Mr. and Mrs. Howard wish to go through with the lot line adjustment. Mr. Seaverns inquired about who owns Lots 23 & 24. Mr. Brian Connors stated that they are owned by Carrie Connors and
Craig Scott. Mr. Smith and Mr. Seaverns questioned Mr. Ladd on whether he had found boundary markers for Lot 20. Mr. Ladd indicated that he had not, that the lot line for Lot 20 was determined by reading of the deed. Mr. Brian Connors referenced a map from 1975. Ms. Bonser stated that the map he was referring to is not recognized as a recorded survey. Mr. Smith asked if Lot 20 was a recently surveyed property. Ms. Beauchamp indicated that Lot 23 had a survey in 1998. Ms. Beauchamp presented a USGS map showing the location of North River and Mountain Brook, which she stated coincides with the Nottingham tax maps. She also stated that all the deeds call out “going to the brook.” Ms. Bonser asked if all abutters were present. Mr. Ladd indicated that they were.
Mr. Smith read the Completeness letter from Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) for the record. The letter indicated that the application submitted by Mr. Ladd did not have the signatures of Craig Scott or Carrie Connors, the current owners of the abutting property (Map 17 Lots 23 & 24). Mr. Ladd indicated that they were in attendance and would sign the application. Ms Connors stated that she was hesitant because of issues with boundary markers. Mr. Smith stated that the issue with boundaries is not for the Planning Board to decide. He said that would need to be settled between the property owners. Ms. Bonser asked if all were in agreement with the lot line. All interested parties came to the front to view the plans presented. Mr. Murphy (Lot 20) stated he was not in agreement
with any of it. Ms. Bonser stated that boundary issues would need to be resolved prior to the Planning Board doing anything.
Mr. Seaverns noted that there are other issues with acceptance of this application, including the abutters list being dated over a month prior to the application. Regulations state they are to be within 5 days. Ms. Bonser stated that with an abutter protesting a lot line, there was no need for the Board to go any further. Mr. Smith stated that somehow the line at the brook needed to be established. Ms. Bonser inquired as to whether the Board should move forward on completeness of this application until such time that an abutter could provide a survey that disputes the boundary that Mr. Ladd had come up with. Mr. Murphy stated he would like Mr. Reagan to speak on his behalf. Mr. Reagan stated that he felt it was up to the applicant, not Mr. Murphy, to provide proof of the boundaries since it was not Mr.
Murphy who brought about any of this action. Mr. Ladd indicated he had proof in the deed. Mr. Reagan stated that a complete survey in regards to the deed would provide more information, and that without that information, Mr. Murphy felt as though he was losing a piece of his land in a transaction brought about by others. Mr. Ladd read the deed for Lot 20 at Ms. Bonser’s request. There continued to be a dispute between abutters over the boundary.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to deny acceptance of the application for lack of signature from Ms. Carrie Connors and Mr. Craig Scott, owners of Lots 23 & 24, and also because the abutters list was dated more than 5 days prior to the application date. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-MAP 11 LOT 7 - CASE #P06-09-SUB – BLUE FIN DEVLEOPMENT:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-09-SUB, Map 11 Lot 7 at 8:30 PM.
Mr. Ladd appeared in representation of Blue Fin Development, for the design review, acceptance, and approval of a subdivision. Mr. Ladd indicated that Blue Fin is requesting a waiver to the Town’s regulation requiring topographic contouring of the entire parcel Section V:A.3. Mr. Smith read the waiver to all present. Mr. Seaverns questioned whether a waiver had been granted for the back lot in the previous subdivision application. Ms. Bonser reviewed the previous file and found that no waiver had been granted.
Ms. Bonser moved to accept the waiver for the topography. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Seaverns indicated that the applicant would need to go before the ZBA for a waiver to Section VI:6.A.1 for the driveway.
Mr. Smith read the Completeness letter from Strafford Regional Planning for the record. A lengthy discussion regarding the definition of “buildable area” and the 60K requirement ensued. Mr. Seaverns explained that for lack a better term, the term “buildable area” has been used. It is not the intent to make an area that is suitable for non-manmade tolerances larger than it needs to be, however, the area needs to be defined as something so that measurements could be taken to determine uplands and “buildable area.” Mr. Seaverns asked Ms. Beauchamp if she understood his explanation. She stated that she heard what he was saying. Mr. Seaverns then stated that the best way to view it is in layers; the first layer being all things natural to the land. All things man-made,
including the septic areas, the homes, the sheds, the driveways are added as you move up the layers and must appear within whatever set backs appear on the property. Ms. Bonser stated that this comes back to the 200X200 buildable area which contains the setbacks, or the 200 ft. road frontage lot where the buildable area is in front. Ms. Bonser stated that her current understanding is that nothing should go in the setbacks. Mr. Smith stated that you can put a septic in the setbacks, however, it cannot be shown on the subdivision plans that way. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Planning Board does not have control over building, that it is the Planning Board’s job to ensure that a lot is characterized as a buildable lot by state, federal, and town regulations. Ms. Bonser stated that she had thought that whatever was presented to them and approved was etched in stone. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Planning Board does not have control over that and
that the only thing the Planning Board could prove is that the lot has the capability to get from the road to the buildable area, it is then up to the Building Inspector. Mr. Smith questioned whether the Board was all set with the buildable area on these two lots. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Regulation state that the buildable area must be specified on the plans. Mr. Ladd needs to define this on the plan either as a 200X200 area or as 60K contiguous area as long as there is no neck-down less than 50 feet. Mr. Seaverns informed Mr. Smith that the lines they are seeing on the plan are setback lines, not a defined buildable area. Mr. Ladd indicated that he would move the leach fields within the buildable area and define the buildable area on the plan. Ms. Beauchamp indicated she was not in agreement with the 60K contiguous area based on the scale. Regulation state that 1 inch = 50 feet and by her measurements, the lot bottlenecked to less
than half an inch. Mr. Ladd indicated that he felt there was a misunderstanding with buildable area again. He stated that the buildable area on the plan is everything except what is in blue. Mr. Smith inquired if Ms. Beauchamp was viewing the buildable area as excluding the setbacks. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she had to interpret it that way because that is the way it is written. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Planning Board has attempted to fix the “buildable area” issue, however, much of it is in zoning. He also stated that the Board is aware that what is stated in the Regulations is not what is done, but they are working towards that end. Mr. Smith asked if they were all set with the buildable area. Mr. Ladd stated again that he would define the buildable areas on the plan and move the leach fields within the buildable area.
SRPC’s letter stated that fees were in question. Ms. Chauvey stated that the public notice fee had been paid. In running down the fee schedule it was determined that the applicant was charged $100 for the application fee, not $100 per lot as the fee schedule states. Mr. Ladd stated that he was only creating one lot, as one already existed. Ms. Beauchamp stated that this issue was clarified at a meeting and it was determined that when subdividing, the original lot was to be included as a new lot created. Based on the fee schedule at the time of application, it was determined that the applicant still owed the Town $100 for the application fee. All other fees associated with this application have been paid in full.
SRPC’s letter questioned wooded areas on the plat. Mr. Smith questioned if Ms. Beauchamp had noted this because wooded areas were not indicated on the plat. Ms. Beauchamp answered in the affirmative. Mr. Smith stated that the lots are pretty much all wooded and they have not figured out how to show a completely wooded lot. Ms. Beauchamp stated that woods look like clouds on a plat. Mr. Ladd stated that in drawing woods that way, what is being indicated is the edge of the woods with a field on the other side. Mr. Seaverns recommended that a note be added to the plat.
SRPC’s letter questioned a utility easement. Mr. Ladd stated there are none on the property. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp if she had seen something in her review. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she could not recall why she had questioned a utility easement.
SRPC’s letter questioned a second test pit for proposed Lot 7-4 and placement of the 4K areas on both lots. Mr. Ladd stated he would add a test pit for 7-4 and move both test pits out of the setbacks.
SRPC’s letter stated that there was no application for a driveway permit in the file. Mr. Ladd stated the driveway permits were issued with the original application. Mr. Smith reviewed the original file and found the approved driveway application for Lot 7. There was no application for Lot 7-4 since the applicant will be going before the ZBA for a variance for a shared driveway. Mr. Smith stated that Zoning says a curb-cut needs to be shown.
SRPC’s letter stated that the construction plan for the box culvert does not bear the stamp of a Registered Professional Engineer. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Ladd if that would be in the old file. Mr. Ladd stated that he was not sure if it had one then. He reported the process to be that they lay out the size, then once they go to install it, they call the manufacturer and receive a set of shop drawing that are stamped straight from the manufacturer. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Seaverns if he was aware of what has come through in the past for engineering stamps. Mr. Seaverns indicated that this is different from what he has seen. Normally RCCD does engineering checks for the Town. He added that he was assuming a set of plans were sent to DES and those plans should have the Registered Professional Engineer’s stamp. A perusal of the original file did not yield a plan containing a Registered Professional Engineer’s stamp. Mr. Seaverns indicated that as a minimum the Town should go through
RCCD, or the applicant could provide them with the stamps. Mr. Ladd stated he would get the plan stamped.
SRPC’s letter stated that the Impact Statement was incomplete. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Mr. Curry had concerns with incomplete impact statements. Ms. Beauchamp indicated that she is not a fan of the Town’s Impact Statement. Mr. Smith stated that a completed Impact Statement needs to be submitted by the applicant.
SRPC’s letter indicated that there is no authorization from Blue Fin Development for Richard Ladd. Mr. Smith found the authorization in the file.
SRPC’s letter indicated that a newly proposed lot line should be properly distinguished from the existing property line. Ms. Beauchamp clarified that the plan should be noted for the newly proposed line.
SRPC’s letter indicated that the driveway easement should be more clearly identified. Ms. Beauchamp stated that that was done on the plans receive tonight.
SRPC’s letter stated there should be an easement for the well radius of Lot 7-4. Mr. Ladd stated that that he has moved the well.
SRPC’s letter indicated the application is missing the signed, sealed, and dated Certification of Monument Installation. Ms. Beauchamp stated that this issue had already been addressed in another case. The Board had stated that having it on the plan would suffice. Mr. Smith stated that they need to be set for final approval. Mr. Ladd agreed and stated he would get a certified letter.
SRPC’s letter stated that the Book/Page and date of the Road Easement Deed to the Town of Nottingham should be noted on the plan. Ms. Beauchamp stated that all abutters will be noted on the plan, and since the road was deeded it is an abutter and should be noted. Mr. Seaverns agreed stating that there normally is not a deed to the road.
SRPC’s letter highly recommended that the Planning Board literally see the proposed location of the driveway. Mr. Smith stated that the Board had seen it in the previous application and they were all set with it, unless any new members want to take a look.
SRPC’s letter stated that Reference Plan #2 should include the recording date with the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds (November 10, 2005). Mr. Ladd stated that the date he has on file is November 8, 2006. Ms. Beauchamp stated that her date could be wrong. Mr. Smith requested that Mr. Ladd check the date and add it to the plan.
Lastly, SRPC’s letter referenced the applicant’s request for a waiver. Mr. Smith stated this had been addressed earlier.
Mr. Smith noted that the Board has a list of what the Board needs for application completeness. He inquired about an upcoming ZBA meeting for which Mr. Ladd could submit an application. Ms. Chauvey stated there is a meeting coming up on September 19, 2006. Mr. Ladd could be heard at that meeting if he submitted his application tomorrow between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the public hearing for the design review and approval of the subdivision application of Blue Fin Development, Map 11 Lot 7, Case #P06-09-SUB to October 4, 2006 at 7:15 PM. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-MAP 14 LOT 11-1 - CASE #P06-07-SUB – HORSEPLAY TRUST:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-07-SUB, Map 11 Lot 7 at 9:45 PM.
Mr. Landry spoke on behalf of Whitney Scott who was in attendance. He stated they were here on their continuance to go through a compliance checklist. He brought revised prints from their completeness meeting. He stated they had corrected plan references 3, 4, and 5; added one additional plan that was done prior for Whitney; corrected a recording number; added State subdivision approval under Note 5; added Lot 11-1, 11-1A, are wooded areas to Note 3; added dedication, book, and page on Garland Road. He also pointed out where the Book/Page numbers for the Protective Covenants for the 200 ft. natural woodland buffer was located. He felt they were all set on completeness and were ready to move forward to Strafford Regional Planning Commission’s compliance letter. He noted that there are few things
in the letter that were covered at the last meeting. He stated that the lot number designation issue has been resolved. Street numbers and lot numbers were already on the plan. Mr. Scott stated that he had gotten a call from the Selectmen’s Office and Mr. Seaverns had told him that the lot numbers they had used were good. Mr. Landry stated that Paul Colby received a letter from Captain John Trumbull regarding the fire protection issue. He would supply the Board with one, if they had not received a copy. There was one in the file. Ms. Bonser read the letter for the record. Mr. Landry stated that the surface water drainage issue had been addressed at the last meeting with driveway permits. Also, under additional comments, distance to school was in the Impact Statement. He indicated that he felt the newly proposed lot line was clear, and therefore, not an issue. Ms. Beauchamp informed Mr. Landry that most plans
say “Newly Proposed Line” or something along those lines. Mr. Landry was willing to discuss it with the Board, if it was an issue. Mr. Landry stated that iron pins are not usually set midway, however, he was willing to do that, if Mr. Scott chose to. Regarding the comment about the Certification of Monument Installation, he said he had thought that having it on plan was accepted by the Board. Mr. Seaverns asked if the bounds are in. Mr. Landry stated that they are in. Mr. Landry asked for clarification to which stone wall(s) SRPC’s letter referred. Ms. Beauchamp stated it is the wall that runs through the property. Mr. Ladd then asked for clarification on the question of the location of the proposed well on Lot 11-1A. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Board had wanted to protect the wall. Mr. Landry stated this was all new. Ms. Bonser noted it looked like it was at the end of the stone wall. Mr.
Seaverns noticed that it appears to be in what might be the driveway. Mr. Scott explained that when you submit your septic system design, you have to show to the State the proposed, not the suitable, well location and if the well gets moved, you have to get an as-built plan to show exactly where the well is. He also stated that because of the house location, a portion of the stone wall would need to be moved. It would not pose an issue for the well. Mr. Seaverns noted that there are not really any other options for the well. Mr. Landry also wanted to note in regards to the angling of the lot line that if you scaled it off the curve it’s around 71 degrees and he considered this substantially at a right angle.
Mr. Smith stated that the Board had just asked Mr. Ladd move his 4K area within the setbacks and that looking at Lot 11-1 of this application, it would not fit within the setbacks. Mr. Landry stated it is a State setback, 10 ft from the lot line. Mr. Smith stated that Nottingham’s Subdivision Regulations state “within buildable area.” Mr. Scott stated that Mr. Ladd had said the 4K area could be any shape and could, therefore, fit. Mr. Landry asked why the Board would require a 50’ setback, when the setback is 10’. Ms. Beauchamp referred him to Section IV:F of the Nottingham Subdivision Rule & Regulations, which states, “No structure, wells, or septic facilities shall be constructed or permitted within any setbacks, including but not limited to boundary lines,
wetlands, watercourses, and drainage ways.” She also noted that the Town’s regulations, in this area, are allowed to be more restrictive that the State’s regulations. Mr. Smith stated it does not make sense to stretch and bend the area to make it fit. Mr. Seaverns stated he believed the Board had been handling them according to State regulations. Ms. Bonser stated she thought that until recently they had been allowing septic systems, and so forth, to go into the setbacks. Mr. Seaverns noted that there are no setbacks specifically associated with 4K areas in Nottingham’s regulations. Mr. Smith stated he would rather see a waiver than the bending and stretching of this 4K area to fit the setbacks. Mr. Smith stated that he believed the Town’s regulation need to be changed. Ms. Bonser agreed. Mr. Seaverns noted that there are many areas where the Planning Board does not follow the regulations. Mr. Smith
stated he feels we should go with the State’s regulations. The Board made a decision to go with State requirements and let it pass. Ms. Beauchamp questioned how Mr. Ladd would be handled pertaining to this issue. Mr. Smith stated that that Mr. Ladd had said he had already moved one and did not have a problem moving the other. He also said that’s how it should be done when it can be.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to approve a septic design review and subdivision application from Horseplay Realty Trust, C/O Whitney Scott, Map 14 Lot 11-1, Case #P06-07-SUB. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-MAP 18 LOT 16-6 - CASE #P06-11-SUB – CLARK:
The Chair opened the public hearing on Case #P06-11-SUB, Map 18 Lot 16-6 at 10:35 PM.
Mr. Landry presented the Board with a notarized letter signed Mr. & Mrs. Clark authorizing him to act on their behalf in the design review, acceptance and approval of their subdivision application. Mr. Landry noted that the plan is titled “Subdivision Clarification Plan.” He gave a history of how the lot came about. He read, for the record, a letter sent to Mr. Clark dated February 14, 2005, from the Planning Board indicating that he did not have an approved subdivision application because not all conditions of the approval were met. The letter suggested he come before the Planning Board and exercise an option. Mr. Landry informed the Board that the Clarks went before the ZBA and were granted a variance dated June 29, 2006 for the lack of frontage. Mr. Clark also acquired a 4th
driveway permit to enter this property off of Route 152. He explained that a condition imposed on the Zoning Board approval was that the applicant go back before the Planning Board for review their fire protection plan and their buildable area, and that the applicant must not build anything but a single family home on this property. He stated that his plat is an attempt to comply with the conditions imposed.
Mr. Landry stated he was not sure if the Board had received a waiver for the topography. Ms. Bonser stated she believed it was waived in the original application.
Mr. Seaverns inquired to Mr. Landry whether or not there is a way to go back to the previous plan and just fix what needs to be fixed to make Parcel A what it is now. Mr. Seaverns did not see this route as accomplishing what they are trying to accomplish. Ms. Bonser stated that you cannot go back to the original plan. Mr. Landry confirmed that you cannot pull a plan from the Registry. Mr. Seaverns stated that the right way to correct this is to take the current plan and put references to the previous plan, the decision letter, etc, on it. He added that conditions that were set in the previous application probably could and should be carried over to this application. Also, the intent of what the Board is looking at in this lot such as the waiver for the topography, is all in the previous approval. The
Board is now being asked to make this a buildable lot, whereas before it was decreed a buildable lot because it was being added to an approved lot. Mr. Landry stated that the Board was being asked by the ZBA to see if this is a buildable lot on its own.
Ms. Bonser noted there was nothing in the notes on fire protection. Mr. Landry stated that he had been told by the Captain to not come by the fire department anymore to ask for the letter. What is recorded on the previous plan is that the sprinkler condition does not apply to the Map 18 Lot 17. The Board needs a letter from the fire department for this lot. Ms. Beauchamp encouraged the Board to add a note which states there will be no building beyond the 170 foot mark. Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to add to that. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the ZBA should have indicated that when they granted the variance of the lot. Mr. Landry said that the owner can volunteer to do that, however, it is not something he, himself, would recommend the owner to do. Mr. Seaverns stated he is concerned no one will
know what the 170 foot mark is. Ms. Bonser recommended it be written that a habitable structure would not be built behind the construction line. Mr. Landry stated that he would carry over the 400 foot no construction line from the previous plan.
SRPC’s completeness letter questioned application fees. Ms. Chauvey stated they have been paid.
SRPC’s letter indicated there was no Impact Statement in the file. Mr. Landry explained that he had looked at this as just a clarification plan and did not know the Board would require it. Mr. Smith questioned whether the Impact Statement from the previous application could be used. Ms. Beauchamp stated that we are adding a new lot, new septic, etc. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Landry that the Board would require a new Impact Statement. Mr. Landry inquired as to whether the Board would entertain a waiver. Mr. Seaverns asked what the reason for the waiver was. Mr. Landry stated the request indicated that there were no new lots being added from the previously approved plan. Mr. Seaverns and Ms. Bonser noted that there would be an additional home. Mr. Smith asked if anyone wanted to make a
motion on the waiver. No one did.
SRPC’s letter stated the plat scale does not conform to regulations. Mr. Landry stated that he had a waiver for that, also. He felt that the Board may want to overlay the plat on top of the other drawings. Ms. Bonser stated that that made sense. Mr. Landry read the waiver for the record.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept the waiver for Section V:A of the Nottingham Rules & Regulations. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
SRPC’s letter questioned the location of a pond, stream, and rock wall that were shown for this lot on the previous plan. Mr. Landry stated that he thought this issue would fall under the topography waiver. He was trying to keep the plan clean for the Registry. Mr. Smith stated that things shown on the original plan, they should also be shown on this plan. Mr. Seaverns inquired if a note could be added to say, “See Plan Reference for Natural Features already identified.” Ms. Beauchamp indicated that was acceptable.
SRPC’s letter stated there was no 4K area shown on the plat and that the two test pits are shown outside of the buildable area. Mr. Smith stated a 4K area needed to be shown. Mr. Landry stated he would create a 60K area to comply with this issue.
SRPC’s letter questioned whether there was a culvert for the proposed driveway. Mr. Landry said he was not sure, but did not think so, since everything drains away.
SRPC’s letter indicated Condition #1 from the ZBA a return trip to the Planning Board for review of fire protection and buildable area. Mr. Smith stated that since Mr. Landry was present, the issue was settled.
SRPC’s letter indicated Condition #2 from the ZBA regarding a single family home and a note about the wetland buffer. This issue has already been addressed.
Lastly, SRPC’s letter asked for correction of the Plan Reference to July 21,, 2004, not July 14, 2004. Mr. Landry asked Ms. Beauchamp if she was using the recording date. She stated she was. Mr. Landry informed Ms. Beauchamp that he had always used the Planning Board’s signature date. Ms. Beauchamp stated the recording date is used for researching at the Registry. Mr. Landry stated that the recording number is used for that. Ms. Beauchamp agreed that it is an individual number and could be used for that purpose. She requested the Board to make a decision on what date they want referenced. Mr. Smith stated he thought it should be the recording date. Mr. Seaverns stated that sometimes the Board has plans that are references that do not have the Registry of Deeds
markings on them and they are not recorded, but they do have dates. He felt that if we have the Registry of Deeds number, we probably do not need the date. If the plan is recorded, use the recording number, if not, use the date.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to recess the public hearing of site review, acceptance, and approval of the subdivision lot clarification plan for Mr. and Mrs. Clark, Map 18 Lot 17A, Case #P06-11-SUB to September 20, 2006 at 7:45 PM. Mr. Seavern seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Seaverns noted that the Lot number for this parcel needs to be changed since it never became part of Lot 17. He stated that it should be Lot 16-7, or so. Ms. Chauvey stated she would check the numbers with the Selectman’s Office and renumber the lot accordingly.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Smith asked about mail. Ms. Chauvey stated it was all on the table in front of him. Mr. Seaverns inquired about a letter from RCCD regarding utility poles.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to forward the letter from RCCD to Gerrior and ask them to respond.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
