NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
Approved May 2, 2007
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Bob Davidson Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Peter Gylfphe Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Mary Bonser Ms. Gail Mills
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tray Sleeper, Abutter
Mr. Kelby Longueil, Applicant
Mr. Jonathan Witham, Applicant
Mr. Peter Landry, Land Surveyor
Attorney Christopher Boldt, DT&C
Mr. Joseph Welch, Nottingham Historical Society
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Election of Officers did not take place due to lack of attendance.
Preliminary – Davies, Kim – 12 Demeritt Pond Road – Map 32, Lot 17:
Chair Smith stated that the resident had called to cancel attendance at this meeting and would reschedule sometime in the future.
Public Hearing Continuance – Subdivision Application (acceptance, design review, and final approval of a 6-lot subdivision) – Witham, Jonathan & Mary Paige – Ledge Farm Road – Map 59, Lot 37 – Case #P07-03-SUB:
Chair Smith opened the meeting at 7:34 PM.
Attorney Boldt spoke in representation of the Withams. As a result of a site walk with the Board of Selectmen, a new plat was distributed. Attorney Boldt noted that the new plat did not change the number or configuration of lots. He stated it addressed the dispute of Parcels A & B between the Town and the Witham’s and served to make notice that this was still an open issue. He informed the Board that they were seeking acceptance of the plan, not final approval. He stated that the applicants felt their application met the request of the checklist for subdivision application acceptance
Attorney Boldt reiterated the concept of the plat being a total of six (6) lots with the bulk of the property to remain with the original homestead in an hour glass shape. He noted that the applicants had obtained approval for both a special exception and a variance from the ZBA for proposed Lot 37-1 and that the Planning Board had requested and received clarification of that approval. He clarified for the Board that it was not the applicants’ intent to resolve ownership issues of Parcels A & B with the Planning Board, noting that that issue is before the Selectmen and not of consequence to this application since Lot 37 contained enough frontage without the inclusion of Parcels A & B.
Chair Smith read for the record a letter from the Town Administrator, Charles Brown, which opposed the acceptance of the application until such time that the ownership issue is resolved. Chair Smith stated that it has been the Planning Board’s policy to proceed with the application when there is a boundary dispute, noting there have been changes put in place to ensure effective communication, however, they require acceptance of the application. Ms. Bonser stated that the application was submitted during the time the Planning Board process was changing and she felt if was appropriate for the Planning Board to continue with it as it was. Mr. Welch, referencing the property dispute, stated that accepting the application goes against Article III Section A1 of the Subdivision Regulations, which requires a title to the
property, if title means a clear title. He then inquired if any deed restrictions or conveyances had been submitted with the plan, noting he has not seen them, and they are required in the Regulations, as well. Ms. Beauchamp reminded everyone that the application had not been accepted and the public hearing had not been opened. Attorney Boldt stated that Note 1 on the plat stated there was to be no further subdivision. Mr. Welch inquired about style of construction. Chair Smith stated the meeting was not at that point. Mr. Davidson stated he did not feel public comments should be part of the record since the hearing had not been opened. Chair Smith explained that the reason for moving forward is that anyone can bring forth a dispute to hold up an application.
Chair Smith read for the record a memo from the Planning Board to the ZBA requesting clarification of their approval and conditions on this lot and the corresponding response from the ZBA. Mr. Landry stated that the cemetery easement had been added to the plat.
Ms. Bonser asked Attorney Boldt what the applicants’ position would be on the 65-day time limit should the boundary dispute case go to court. Attorney Boldt stated he felt the 65-day limit is automatically abated. Ms. Bonser asked if the applicant was hoping to get final approval prior to the dispute being resolved. Attorney Boldt stated the boundary dispute did not affect this case as there was nothing being proposed in the Town Square area. Ms. Bonser noted that the remaining lot would not be defined without resolution to the dispute. Attorney Boldt noted that Lot 37 on the plat had both Parcels A & B clearly indicated with their sizes. He noted that remaining Lot 37 would be 9.11 acres or .48 acres, the size of Parcel B, less. Ms. Bonser stated she would like to accept that application
with the understanding that the applicant would grant an extension on the 65-day time line, so the Board may take public comment while the boundary is in negotiation. Attorney Bolt stated comment on the property ownership should take place at a Selectmen’s meeting, not the Planning Board. Ms. Bonser stated there were people in attendance to speak about the subdivision. Ms. Chauvey asked Attorney Boldt to clarify the parcel sizes. Attorney Boldt responded that Parcel A is .75 acres, Parcel B is .48 acres, remaining Lot 37 is 9.11 acres, which includes Parcel B. Ms. Chauvey noted that the total of the six proposed lots, using 9.11 acres for the remaining parent lot, is equal 19.69 acres and the total parcel is only 19.7 acres. Attorney Boldt stated that the 19.69 indicated that Parcel B is included in the 9.11 and Parcel A is not. Mr. Gylfphe responded that if the total of the six lots equals 19.69, then A & B must be included.
Attorney Boldt stated it is not included. Ms. Bonser agreed with Attorney Boldt stating that 19.7 is simply a rounding of 19.69 and all lots have a +/- factor. Ms. Bonser stated that adding the .75 acres comes to 20.44 acres and 19.7+/- was an appropriate figure. Chair Smith asked Board Members if they were all set with the way the acreage appeared on the plat. There was no response.
Referring to the boundary dispute, Mr. Davidson inquired as to the Planning Board’s process. Ms. Bonser stated that the plan that is approved will represent the Court’s decision. Attorney Boldt reiterated that the plan before the Board does not effect the Parcels in dispute. He stated that Witham’s can subdivide and sell off the subdivided lots without the dispute ever being resolved, however, they would not be able to sell the parent lot.
Attorney Boldt submitted a plan scale waiver. Chair Smith noted ZBA clarification had been received and noted that cemetery access and the 50-foot right-of-way were shown on the plat. Chair Smith asked if there was going to be a deed to the Town. Mr. Landry stated there would be.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to accept the plan scale waiver to allow a scale of 1”=60’ for better detail. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4.0.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the application for a 6-lot subdivision from Jonathan & Mary Paige Witham, Ledge Farm Road, Map 59 Lot 37, Case #P06-07-SUB. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Bonser made a motion continue the application for design review and final approval of a 6-lot subdivision from Jonathan & Mary Paige Witham, Ledge Farm Road, Map 59 Lot 37, Case #P06-07-SUB until May 2, 2007, at 7:15 PM. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to have Ms. Beauchamp complete a Compliance Review for Case #P06-07-SUB. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Welch asked if there would be public input on May 2. Chair Smith and Ms. Bonser responded that there would be public comment taken at that meeting.
Mr. Davidson made a motion to hold a site walk at 3 Ledge Farm Road on Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 8:00 AM. This motion is to include invitations to Ms. Beauchamp of SRPC, the Nottingham Fire Department, and the Conservation Commission. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Public Hearing – Site Plan Review (acceptance, design review, and final approval) – Longueil, Paul & Leslie – Cooper Hill Road – Map 16, Lot 5 – CASE #P07-04-SIT:
Chair Smith opened the meeting at 8:45 PM
Mr. Kelby Longueil spoke in representation of his parents, Paul & Leslie Longueil. He gave a brief history of the property stating that currently there are 5 apartments and one storage unit. They want to condo-ize them and sell them as individual units.
Ms. Chauvey informed the Board that the Town of Northwood did not receive the required 10 day notice. She stated that she had contacted the Northwood Planner last week and had been told that the Planner did not consider this a project of regional impact and that it did not require notification. Ms. Beauchamp suggested a notice be sent to Northwood with the continuation date, if the board chose not to move forward tonight.
Chair Smith read for the record a letter from Doucett Surveying sent to Ms. Beauchamp disputing the Planning Board’s authority to require a site plan review for a condo conversion. The letter informed Ms. Beauchamp that the Surveyor had advised his client to seek legal advice and requested that she forward a copy of her Completeness Review to the applicant. Mr. Longueil handed out copies of documents from the Town of Dover referenced in the letter from Doucett Surveying.
Mr. Gylfphe went to the Planning Office to obtain a previous file associated with this lot. Chair Smith asked Mr. Longueil how long the apartments had been in existence. Mr. Longueil replied that he thought it had been 20 – 25 years. Chair Smith stated there was an approval for a Bed & Breakfast in 1990, Mr. Longueil stated that the owner had lived in unit #4, a very large unit, and the Bed & Breakfast was contained in that one unit. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he had researched this property and could not find out when these units became apartments. Chair Smith noted that the plat in the file Mr. Gylfphe had returned with showed a separate unit of apartments.
Mr. Gylfphe inquired as to the location of the septic system. Mr. Longueil pointed it out on the plat and stated that there is a second suitable site, if needed. Ms Bonser asked if the current septic was approved. Mr. Longueil replied that it is approved and meets current standards.
Addressing SRPC’s Completeness Review, Mr. Longueil submitted a request for waiver of Section V-B of the Site Plan Review Regulations requiring an Impact Statement.
SRPC’s Completeness Review noted that not all required notices were sent. Ms. Chauvey stated that the Condo Association had received notice and the Town of Northwood had been addressed earlier, however, Surveyors, Blaisdell and Doucet had not received notice. Mr. Longueil stated that he had had to pick up new plats earlier in the day and the surveyors were aware of the upcoming meeting. Ms. Beauchamp stated that as a requirement of RSA 676:41(d) certified notice is supposed to be sent to all entities/individuals with a stamp on the plat.
In response to SRPC’s Completeness Review, Mr. Longueil submitted a request for waiver of Section VII of the Site Plan Review Regulations requiring a scale of not less than 1” equaling 50’, noting that the scale, done at 1” = 20’, provided for detail to the plat. In regard to Section VII-C, he stated he would have the North River added to the locus map and the scale of the locus map added to the plat. He noted that there are no community facilities, such as police or fire departments, to be identified on the locus map.
SRPC’s Completeness Review noted that Section VII-D requires contours at 2-foot intervals, Wetland Conservation areas, and dimensions, area and minimum setback requirements on all existing and proposed lots be shown on the plat. It also noted that there appeared to be an extra curb cut between units #3 & #4. Ms. Smith of the Conservation Commission noted that this property was part of the Lamprey River Watershed and changes to contour, pavement and such would be of critical importance to the Commission. Mr. Longueil reported that there would be no contour changes or changes to parking. Ms. Beauchamp requested there be a note on the plat stating no changes in contour or increase to impervious surfaces. Chair Smith agreed, noting that the Regulations only addressed contour, not pavement. Mr.
Longueil stated his father has no plans to make any changes to the property, he simply wants to sell the units. Chair Smith asked Ms. Smith if this property fell within the Shoreland Protection area. Ms. Smith stated she was not sure if the North River was wide enough in the area of the property to come under Shoreland Protection. Chair Smith requested that the Wetland Conservation area be noted on the plat. In regards to the curb-cut/driveway, Mr. Longueil stated the driveway is and has been there. Ms. Beauchamp reported that it is not shown on the recorded plat of 2001. Chair Smith informed Mr. Longueil that any new or proposed driveways would require a permit from the Building Inspector. Ms. Bonser asked Mr. Longueil to remove the note pertaining to the proposed driveway from the plat to avoid confusion or concerns. Chair Smith informed Mr. Longueil that the driveway in question was not an approved driveway and would not be
approved for use without a permit. Chair Smith noted the plat is very busy, stating that the Board usually receives two sets. Ms. Bonser stated that the Regulations do not require two plats. Ms. Beauchamp noted that the plat, as is, is not recordable. Ms. Beauchamp also clarified that the recommendation from SRPC for landscaping between Cooper Hill Road and Unit #6 was for something such as rhododendrons to be planted between the leach field and the unit. Chair Smith stated they would not address that as a requirement.
Still addressing SRPC’s comments on Section VII-D, Mr. Longueil stated there is no plan to change the mailbox system currently in use and he asked for clarification on the suggestion of a rain garden. Ms. Smith and Ms. Beauchamp explained the design and purpose of a rain garden. Based on SRPC’s comments regarding the pedestrian walks, the Board requested that Note 5D either be changed or removed. Mr. Longueil stated the purpose of the note was not to restrict the residents but to be sure that his parent’s were still able to access the foot path via the foot bridge from their abutting Northwood property. Ms. Bonser and Chair Smith stated it did not read that way and it would need to be changed. Mr. Longueil stated he would check it out. Chair Smith asked if unit #6 was going to be used for
storage for the condo units. Mr. Longueil stated it would not, unit #6 was also going to be sold (as a private storage unit). Ms. Beauchamp stated that selling it as a storage unit poses concern and indicated that that may be something on which the Board should seek legal advice.
Ms. Bonser suggested recessing the hearing since SRPC’s Compliance Review was quite lengthy and Mr. Longueil had just received a copy tonight. Mr. Gylfphe agreed. Mr. Longueil asked if the waivers were written appropriately. Chair Smith read the waivers and requested that Mr. Longueil add a reason to one of them.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to recess the hearing of a Site Plan Review for Paul and Leslie Longueil, Cooper Hill Road, Map 16 Lot 5, Case #P07-04-SIT, until May 2, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
