NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Skip Seaverns, Vice-Chair Ms. Mary Bonser
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Scott Curry
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Thomas Sweeney, Building Committee Mr. Peter Landry, Land Surveyor
Mr. Jaye Vilchock, Fire Chief Mr. Michael J. Bascom, Applicant
Ms. Sandra Vilchock Mr. Joseph A. Bascom, Applicant
Mr. Joseph C. Welch Mr. Trey Sleeper, Abutter
Ms. Regina Splaine, Abutter Mr. David B. Fernald, Abutter
Mr. Dan Splaine, Abutter Ms. Barb H. Pratt
Ms. Paige Witham, Applicant Ms. Gretchen Colpritt
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Curry to sit in for Ms. Jones.
MINUTES:
The Chair opened discussion on the minutes of January 3, 2007.
Ms. Chauvey asked for clarification on Mr. Seaverns conversation regarding scattered and premature. Mr. Seaverns stated that if the road was considered a Class V or better then the subdivision presented by Mr. Orvis could be considered scattered and premature.
There was an incomplete sentence in the first paragraph. Ms. Chauvey stated she would like to go back to the tapes to see what was said.
There was no vote taken for the minutes of January 3, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – NOTTINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT – STAGE ROAD - MAP 29 LOT 12 - CASE #P06-17-SUB:
The Chair opened the Public Meeting on Case #P06-17-SUB, Map 29 Lot 12 at 7:21 PM.
Mr. Landry presented new plans to Board Members. He stated that he brought copies of the State Driveway Permit, State Subdivision Construction Approval, and has listed them all under Note 3. Mr. Smith asked if there was a permit for the Priest Road entrance. Mr. Landry stated there was not, as it was an existing driveway that they intended to widen. Mr. Landry reported that he had added the 9-1-1 to the plan.
Mr. Curry asked to review zoning issues with this plan. Mr. Sweeney explained that the only issue had been the setbacks in relation to expansion but that had been addressed. Mr. Curry said he just wanted to follow up on some old issues and that he felt the Board was comfortable with it. Mr. Seaverns asked if the plan done by
Appledore, for the Site Plan Review, could be redone to reflect 50 feet on the setback, instead of the original 75. Mr. Sweeney assured Mr. Seaverns that the plan has been adjusted.
Mr. Curry made a motion to approve the subdivision application of Nottingham School District, Map 29 Lot 12, Case #P06-17-SUB. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Plans were signed.
PUBLIC HEARING – BASCOM, MICHAEL & TERESA AND BASCOM, RODNEY & FRANCES, – STAGE ROAD – MAP 38 LOT 4 & 4A, MAP 43 LOTS 5 & 5A - CASE #P07-02-LL:
The Chair opened the Public Meeting on Case #P07-02-LL, Map 38 Lots 4 & 4A and Map 43 Lots 5 & 5A at 7:40 PM.
Mr. Landry handed out new plans showing final monumentation. He stated that the property is located across from Liar’s Paradise on Stage Road, and included the Rockingham House, owned by Rodney & Frances Bascom (Map 43 Lot 5), Michael & Teresa Bascom’s property, next to the Rockingham House (Map 43 Lot 5A), and property owned by Rodney & Frances Bascom, which is accessed from Gerrish Road (Map 38 Lots 4 & 4A). Mr. Landry explained that the applicants want to make two lot line adjustments. The first, between Map 43 Lots 5 & 5A, was to offset the lot line by 20 feet to accommodate Michael & Teresa Bascom’s driveway, which was currently on the lot line. The second adjustment, between Map 43 Lot 5 and Map 38 Lot 4A, was to add approximately 4 acres to Map 38 Lot 4A. Mr.
Seaverns asked for clarification of the frontage for Lot 4A. Mr. Landry explained that Lot 4 is the 80 feet of frontage for Lot 4A.
Mr. Landry stated that in response to Strafford Regional Planning Commission’s completeness letter he had added Note 4 regarding tree cutting within 50 feet of the river and hazardous material hazardous material per the Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Smith stated he would like to see the 250-foot Shoreland Protection buffer shown on the plan. Mr. Landry said he would have to check if that area was under the Shoreland Protection but he felt that was not necessary as this was just a lot line adjustment, not a subdivision. He also stated that SRPC’s letter had noted the lack of an Impact Statement, however, he had never submitted an Impact Statement for a lot line adjustment. Ms. Beauchamp clarified that SRPC’s letter was asking for a waiver, since Impact Assessment was a requirement in Zoning. Mr. Landry
noted that the Commercial/Residential/Agricultural Zone was show on the new plans. He stated that the dry hydrant was added to the new plan. SRPC’s letter requested to have the Ground Water Management number to be added to the plan. Mr. Landry stated it had been added under the owner of record. He felt that everything was complete and indicated that applicant’s were hoping for acceptance and approval.
Mr. Curry informed Mr. Landry that the Board requires waivers when things do not comply with the Zoning Ordinances to keep a consistent history. He noted the importance for the Board to have the written request on file. Mr. Curry then inquired to the Board whether they could foresee any future problems with subdivision of Map 43 Lot 5 since these lot line adjustments would give it a “Z” shape. Mr. Landry noted that that lot would be left with 448 feet of frontage. Mr. Seaverns noted that none of that was before the Board. Mr. Curry stated he did not want the applicant’s to unknowingly get boxed in. Mr. Landry stated they were happy with the plan.
Ms. Beauchamp asked Mr. Landry if the applicants would consider merging Lots 4 & 4A. Mr. Landry stated they would. Ms. Chauvey stated that there was no fee, however, she did need an application from the owners. Mr. Seaverns stated he had concerns that Lot 4A did not have adequate frontage. Mr. Landry stated that the lot is existing. Mr. Joseph Bascom stated that he would be willing to purchase the unbuildable piece of land abutting his that is owned by the Town of Nottingham to make his frontage, if the Town wanted to sell it.
Mr. Landry submitted waivers for the Impact Statement and the topography, which Mr. Smith read for the record. Ms. Chauvey noted the waivers had not been signed by Rodney and Frances Bascom. Ms. Beauchamp asked if there was an authorization in the file. Ms. Chauvey responded there was not. Mr. Landry noted that they had signed the application. Mr. Smith stated there was no authorization from them to be represented by anyone who was present. Mr. Seaverns stated that he felt the waivers were not changing anything, therefore no representation was needed. He clarified for the record that Impact Statement and topography are not typically required for lot line adjustments.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the waivers submitted for the Impact Statement and topography since this application is a lot line adjustment and they are not required. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Curry made a motion to accept the lot line adjustment application as complete. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Smith inquired again about the Shoreland Protection. Mr. Landry stated that all lots are existing and currently fall under all existing regulations. Mr. Seaverns noted that the aquifer protection district was noted on the plan and that was enough for him.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept the lot line adjustment application from Bascom, Michael & Teresa and Bascom, Rodney & Frances, Stage Road, Map 38 Lots 4 & 4A, Map 43 Lots 5 & 5A, Case #P07-02-LL, since all lots are pre-existing and they are now more conforming to the Town’s regulations. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board to make a motion to release SRCP from liability for compliance. Mr. Smith stated his understanding was that the Board would request Compliance when they wanted it. In this case, the Board had moved forward and approved the plan immediately following completeness, did not ask for Compliance, and therefore needed no motion to release SRPC from liability.
Mr. Chauvey informed the applicant they owed $127.00 for four (4) additional mailings and approval fees. The applicant paid by check.
Plans were signed. The applicant’s left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – WITHAM, JONATHAN & MARY PAIGE – LEDGE FARM ROAD – MAP 59 LOT 37 - CASE #P07-03-SUB:
The Chair opened the Public Meeting on Case #P07-03-SUB, Map 59 Lot 37 at 8:50 PM.
Mr. Landry spoke in representation of the Withams. He identified the property at the top of the Town Square. He stated they were proposing a six lot subdivision. He explained that four of the proposed lots were fronting on Route 156/Raymond Road and contained the 2 acre minimum requirement with 200 feet of frontage. He noted that proposed lot 37-1 has a backlot configuration on Ledge Farm Road. He explained that the lot has 30 feet of frontage going back approximately 600-700 feet off the road to the lot. Mr. Landry stated that the applicant had already gone before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the approval and presented the Board with a copy of the decision. Mr. Smith read the Notice of Decision for the record. Mr. Landry stated that the condition needs to be clarified to indicate that
the parent lot which is not to be subdivided further would be the proposed 9.11 acres remaining from the entire 6 lot subdivision, not the entire parcel minus the lot on Ledge Farm Road.
Mr. Landry addressed SRPC’s Completeness letter. He stated that he had though the Board was all set with the fit for building/buildable area issue, however, it is addressed in SRPC’s letter, again. Mr. Seaverns stated it is an issue that needs to be cleared up, but not at a public hearing. He explained that Ms. Beauchamp has an obligation to do her job a specific way and that is reflected in the letters. Mr. Seaverns assured Mr. Landry that the Board is working to correct it.
Mr. Landry stated he had used a 60 scale instead of a 100 scale because at 100 scale it was too small. He stated they would submit a waiver for that if the Board required.
Mr. Landry inquired as to how the Board wanted to handle making the right of way conform to the 50 feet. He stated it may be best to choose an easement over a deeded ROW. He stated they have initiated State Subdivision approval.
Mr. Smith asked if the applicants had spoken with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Landry stated they had not. Mr. Smith stated he felt that if Nottingham had a Historical District, this would be it and he thought the Historical Society may want to have some input. Mr. Smith stated he would like to send them a letter. Mr. Landry responded that he thought that was a good idea. Mr. Welch stated the Historical Society would respond and he asked for clarification on tonight’s proceedings. Mr. Curry explained that the application was being considered for acceptance only tonight and that acceptance was based on completeness of the application. He stated the subdivision would not be approved at this meeting.
Mr. Landry noted that SRPC’s letter inquired about access to the cemetery. He stated that they were not interrupting any existing rights. Mr. Smith stated that an easement is usually granted for access. He asked Mr. Landry what is currently in place to ensure access to family members. Mr. Landry responded that he was not sure what currently exists. Mr. Seaverns asked Mr. Landry if there was any mention of the cemetery in the deed. Mr. Landry reviewed the deed and did not find anything. Mr. Landry stated he place an easement 10 feet wide along the lot line running parallel with the Fernald lot line, placing it entirely on the homestead lot.
SRPC’s letter requested a note be added stating that no additional lots of record created from this plat or parent lot for at least 4 years from the date of recordation. Ms. Beauchamp explained it is a precaution incase Zoning changes. Mr. Seaverns stated he felt the note should not be on the plan because it is paramount to listing all current zoning and it is up to the Building Inspector to be aware of the dates and zoning. Mr. Smith state he felt the Zoning Ordinance can change and are in effect when they do, however, this one is particular to this plan for four years.
Mr. Smith made a motion to have the note added to the plan. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. Mr. Smith and Ms. Mills voted in favor. Mr. Curry, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns, and Mr. Harding voted against. Motion failed 2-4.
Mr. Smith clarified for Mr. Curry that he felt every subdivision should have that note on it. Mr. Curry suggested that they put that in their Subdivision Regulations, if the majority of the Board feels the same way. He asked if the Board had been consistently requesting that note on subdivisions since the Regulation went into effect. Mr. Smith stated it was not something brought to the Board’s attention before, however, it was suggested by SRPC this time.
Mr. Seaverns noted that the plan does not show the boundary line to the center of the road. Mr. Landry asked Mr. Seaverns if he wanted to see the line 25 feet from the center line of the pavement. Mr. Seaverns clarified that he wanted to see 25 feet from the center of the right of way. Mr. Seaverns stated that Mr. Landry had established a line. He felt it would be good if Mr. Landry could establish a line in a manner that provided the 50 feet. Mr. Landry stated he would have to create an easement.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept an easement for Ledge Farm Road in front of property identified as Tax Map 59 Lot 37 that reflects 25 feet from the right of way. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Mills inquired as to what had been decided regarding setbacks with septic systems. She stated that she understood the State required 10 feet, however, Nottingham’s Zoning states different. Mr. Landry stated that Nottingham’s Building Inspector enforces zoning and he says the setback is 10 feet. Ms. Mills informed Mr. Landry that that is not what the Zoning Ordinances say. Mr. Smith stated that the precedence of the Board has been to allow the 10 feet. Ms. Mills inquired as to when the Board would start following the Town Ordinances. She stated she would like to do some more research on the subject. Mr. Smith stated that he felt they should continue to do as they have done until they agree what changes to make to either the Ordinances or Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Seaverns
stated that the Building Inspector is supposed to follow the Town’s Zoning Ordinances, however, there is disagreement about whether or not a septic system is a structure. He stated that structure is defined as any man-made object placed upon the ground and he feels that septic systems fall within that category. He stated that there are 50 foot setbacks for structures and that is what should be abided by. He noted for the record that the Building Inspector works for the Selectmen, not the Planning Board. Mr. Seaverns pointed out that it is not a Planning Board issue that the Building Inspector has chosen to write letters stating the setback is 10 feet. The Board is to look at area fit for building. Ms. Mills stated she was talking about the setback. Mr. Seaverns stated that 4F is a building requirement, not a subdivision requirement associated with plans. Ms. Beauchamp read 4F for the record. Mr. Seaverns
stated that has to do with structures, not subdivision. Mr. Seaverns stated it is unfortunate that that section is in there. He stated that it is a requirement that cannot be levied in a subdivision plan. Mr. Smith moved the Board along at this time.
Mr. Seaverns noted that clarification of the ZBA’s “Notice of Decision” was required. The notice only referenced the lots involved in the case and the condition stated that the plan and deed must state that the parent lot cannot be further subdivided, however, there are four other proposed lots.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to send a letter to the Zoning Board requesting clarification of what was presented to them and their Notice of Decision. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Mills, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, and Mr. Harding voted in favor. Mr. Curry voted against. Motion passed 5-1.
Mr. Curry inquired about the plat scale. Mr. Seaverns stated 1”=60’ was acceptable to him. Mr. Landry was asked to provide a waiver.
Mr. Curry asked for clarification on where the Board stood with septic system setbacks. Mr. Smith stated it would be good if the septic for proposed lot 37-1 moved further toward the “fit for building” area. He felt the same for the septic reserve for proposed lot 37-2. He stated he would like to see it closer to conforming. Mr. Landry indicated he felt the Board was saying it was ok on one hand, but they wanted it moved. Ms. Splaine inquired why there was such a grey area with this issue. Mr. Seaverns stated that over time, when changes get voted in, things become blurred, even though the intent was good. Mr. Smith stated that the Building Inspector sways because the State Regulations are less strict than Nottingham’s. Mr. Smith assured Ms. Splaine that the Board is currently
working on these issues. Ms. Mills noted for the record that in regards to the Building Inspector allowing 10 feet, DES had told her that Town Ordinances supersede State Regulations in this area. Mr. Smith stated that he had been on the Board for seven years and the ordinance has always been read and interpreted in the manner they have been applying it. Mr. Seaverns stated the he believes the Building Inspector does not consider a septic system a structure, therefore, he believes the 50’ requirement does not apply.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the meeting for acceptance of the application from Jonathan & Mary Paige Witham, 3 Ledge Farm Road, Map 59 Lot 37, Case #P07-03-SUB to February 7, at 7:45 PM. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PRELIMINARY – COLPRITT, GRETCHEN – 238 OLD TURNPIKE ROAD – MAP 16 LOT 29:
The Chair opened the preliminary hearing at 10:55 PM.
Ms. Colpritt stated that she came before the Board to ask about putting a building on her parents property on Route 4 that they would use for storage, and she and her husband could use to house restaurant equipment that he sells. Ms. Colpritt’s mother, Ms. Pratt, was also in attendance. Ms. Colpritt stated there would be no traffic coming to the site for sales or deliveries. She reported that everything brought in or out would be brought in or out in her husband’s truck.
Ms. Colpritt was advised that Zoning allowed for the building of storage sheds, which this appeared to be.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mail was distributed.
Ms. Chauvey asked the Board Members if they could have a discussion about her roles and responsibilities to the Planning Board. Mr. Smith invited her to speak. Ms. Chauvey reported that she had had a conversation with Charles Brown, Town Administrator regarding the awkwardness of working for the Planning Board but reporting to Mr. Brown. She stated that she needed to be able to have direct communication with the Board in order to be able to perform her duties effectively. Ms. Chauvey stated that she and Mr. Brown felt that communication regarding her roles and responsibilities to the Planning Board should be between the Board and herself. She went on to say that if something should arise that cannot be resolved between the Board and herself, then and Executive Officer of the Planning Board, should approach Mr.
Brown. Members of the Planning Board agreed with this procedure.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to adopt the following procedure in regards to the Planning Board Secretary: Any Planning Board Member who has an issue with roles and responsibilities of the Planning Board Secretary must first address the issue with the other members of the Board. If the Board is in agreement, they should then address the Planning Board Secretary. If the issue cannot be resolved, an Officer of the Planning Board will then involve the Town Administrator. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
