NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 2, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
Approved May 16, 2007
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe (left @ 9:20) Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate (arrived @ 7:10 PM)
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Bob Davidson
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen’s Representative (sat until 7:25 PM)
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Representative (arrived @ 7:25 PM)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Atty. Chris Boldt, Donahue, Tucker & Ciancella Mr. Jim Fernald, Applicant
Mr. Peter Landry, Landry Surveying Mr. Joseph Welch, Historical Society
Ms. Leslie Longueil, Applicant Mr. Robert Chase, Resident
Mr. Paul Longueil, Applicant Ms. June Chase, Historical Society
Mr. Steven T. Bibeau, RSL Layout & Design Ms. Regina Splaine, Abutter
Mr. Jonathan Witham, Applicant Mr. Dan Splaine, Abutter
Ms. Deb Stevens, Applicant, Conservation Commission Mr. Bernard Adams, Applicant
Ms. Debra Kimball, Conservation Commission Mr. Tray Sleeper, Abutter
Mr. David Fernald, Applicant Mr. Bill Netishen, Nottingham Selectman
Mr. Charles Brown, Town Administrator Mr. David Noyes, Suveyor
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Ms. Traci Chauvey, ZBA Secretary (arrived @ 7:25 PM)
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Ms. Bonser sat in for Mr. Bock during approval of minutes. Chair Leib asked Mr. Curry to sit for Sandra Jones for the duration of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Davidson noted his name was misspelled on Page 2 of the April 4 meeting minutes. Ms. Mills noted sentence three in paragraph three of the first page read, “...the Planning Board to leave continue….” Ms. Bonser stated she felt it should the word ‘continue’ should be used instead of ‘leave’. Ms. Mills noted the word ‘with’ in paragraph seven should be ‘will’.
Mr. Davidson made a motion to accept the minutes of the April 4, 2007 meeting with the above noted corrections. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Mills noted that her name was missing from the list of absentee members on the April 18, 2007 meeting minutes. Mr. Davidson noted his name was again misspelled in the second sentence of the first paragraph under Other Business.
Mr. Curry made a motion to accept the minutes of the April 18, 2007 minutes with the above noted corrections. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – Subdivision application (compliance review and final approval of a 6-lot subdivision), Jonathan & mary paige witham – 3 ledge farm road – TAX Map 59 Lot 37 – case #P07-03-sub:
Chair Smith opened the meeting at 7:25 PM.
Mr. Landry spoke in representation of the Withams. He handed out new plats and addressed SRPC’s Compliance Review, noting that several issues in the review had already been addressed. Mr. Landry stated that during the site walk Ms. Beauchamp had viewed the rock formations referenced under Sect V A 5 in SRPC’s Compliance Review report and she is aware that this area is where the rocks were thrown when the field was cleared and there is no historical feature in this location. He also noted that Sect V-A.9 Individual Lot Sewage Facilities referenced in SRPC’s Compliance Report had already been covered. Mr. Landry stated he believed Sect V-A-15 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan noted in SRPC’s Compliance Review report had already been addressed (when Mr. Seaverns was still on the board) and that
the applicant was not required to supply this because they were not building a road in the subdivision and this was a road requirement. In reference to SRPC’s notes on Sect VI A-1, Mr. Landry pointed out that the road frontage for proposed Lot 37-2 is on the plat twice, General Note #1 now states what was granted by the ZBA, and the granite posts which run along the front of the existing dwelling are now in the legend. He also stated that the lot numbers had not been provided by the Selectmen’s Office.
Mr. Landry stated a driveway permit had not been applied for on proposed Lot 37-1 because the driveway is an existing driveway. Chair Smith inquired as to how long it had been in existence. Mr. Witham stated there had been a smaller walkway through there which he opened approximately five (5) years ago. Chair Smith stated a driveway permit would be required for something that recent. Mr. Landry stated the applicant would apply. In regard to SRPC’s note referencing fire protection, Mr. Landry stated he has not received a recommendation from the Nottingham Fire Department, but noted that Plan Note #7 states the single family dwellings are to have sprinkler systems installed.
Mr. Landry addressed the comments from SRPC’s review stating the applicant would have the easement drawn up. He clarified for the board the confusion around Comment #2, noting that he had added a note under the 9.11 acres to say that it includes Parcel B. He stated Parcel A is not included. He noted that he has attempted to obtain lot and 9-1-1 numbers from the Selectmen’s Office but has been unsuccessful. Ms. Chauvey stated that the lot numbers have been confirmed by memo from the Selectmen’s Office. Chair Smith read the memo for the record. Mr. Brown, Town Administrator, stated there has been a problem in the past when issuing 9-1-1 numbers prior to building permits being pulled. Chair Smith suggested changing the policy. Mr. Landry stated he had attempted to write a waiver
but could not find the requirement in the Ordinances or Regulations. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed it is not in either document.
Mr. Landry noted that last comment regarding spelling errors had been addressed and corrected on the plat.
Mr. Landry stated the applicant is still meeting with the Board of Selectmen to resolve the boundary dispute with the Town regarding the Square. He stated again that if Parcel B is found to be part of the Square, the original lot still contains adequate frontage for the subdivision. Mr. Landry informed the Planning Board that a site walk had been performed despite the absence of Planning Board Members, however, it mainly addressed the Conservation Commission’s issues because they were in attendance. Chair Smith apologized to the applicant for the absence of Planning Board Members.
Mr. Brown introduced Mr. Noyes stating he is the Surveyor who has been hired by the Town to survey the Square.
Ms. Mills noted that some of the septic systems were not located within the buildable area. Chair Smith stated this has been addressed, the problem lies internally with the Board and the Board was going to continue with the applications as they had in the past until it was resolved. Ms. Mills stated her issue is that it keeps continuing with no resolution and she feels the change needs to start somewhere. Attorney Boldt stated that the Zoning Ordinances governs all other Regulations. Mr. Curry thought it was the most restrictive, regardless of if it was Ordinance or Regulation, that applies. Attorney Boldt recommended Mr. Curry confirm that with Town Council. Attorney Boldt confirmed for Ms. Mills that he did not think 4F in the Subdivision Regulations had merit based on the definitions in the Zoning
Ordinances. Ms. Mills stated the definition states ‘structures, including septics’. Ms. Bonser noted this issue has been going on for years. She suggested they seek legal council to resolve it but felt the Board should move forward with this case as they had in the past. Attorney Bolt informed the board that conditional interpretation of the Ordinances is known as ‘Administrative Gloss’. He noted that boards are supposed to continue with the same interpretation until such time the Regulations are changed. He encouraged the board to seek legal council before changing their past procedures. Mr. Curry stated he believed that the Regulations were followed until the hiring of the current Building Inspector, however he was not sure this was the correct venue for the argument. Mr. Bock agreed. Ms. Mills stated she felt there needs to be a catalyst to move this issue forward. She stated she would be happy
to move forward with this application if a time and date were set to address this issue. Chair Smith again reiterated that the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over where the septic system gets built. Chair Smith asked Ms. Mills if she wished to make a motion. She did not.
Mr. Gylfphe mentioned that he noticed a ‘wetland’ that had formed from the last rains on proposed Lot 37-2. He questioned whether the board should request a drainage easement. Mr. Landry approached Mr. Gylfphe to explain his plan. Mr. Gylfphe was ok with Mr. Landry’s response.
Ms. Beauchamp had two comments. First she referred to SRPC’s Compliance Review and Section V-A-15 of the Subdivision Regulations, noting this development is for 3 or more lots. She informed the Board that a waiver was needed if the board was not going to require an erosion and sediment control plan. Secondly she noted that, based on the site walk, she has an issue with the proposed driveway for proposed Lot 37-1. She feels it needs an erosion and sediment control plan. Mr. Landry stated he felt this had already been addressed at the previous meeting. Ms. Beauchamp stated a waiver was never granted. Attorney Boldt felt the determination was that even though it was more than three (3) lots, critical areas were not being disturbed. Mr. Landry stated he did not feel it will erode. Chair
Smith stated he did not understand why three (3) lots would require an erosion and sediment control plan when one (1) lot does not. Attorney Boldt stated he would submit a waiver at the Board’s request.
Chair Smith invited Mr. Noyes to speak. Mr. Noyes stated he had a series of questions for Mr. Landry, noting that all questions are regarding only the disputed area at the Square. Attorney Boldt respectfully declined these questions stating the Board of Selectmen’s meeting would be the proper venue for such a discussion. Mr. Noyes stated his intent is to raise issues in opposition of the Planning Board approving the subdivision. Chair Smith informed those present that the Board was not in a position to approve this application tonight. He invited Mr. Noyes to stay seated at the front to answer questions that may arise from the audience. Mr. Bock inquired as to how the Planning Board would obtain the information Mr. Noyes had regarding the adjoining piece. Chair Smith asked Mr. Noyes to state
the Town’s position on the dispute. Mr. Noyes stated there is both written and physical evidence defining the Nottingham Town Square. He referenced two previous surveys that included some definition of the boundaries of the square. Attorney Boldt confirmed with Mr. Noyes that the surveys to which he was referring were not surveys of the subject property, but across the street. Mr. Curry asked Mr. Noyes what affect the determination of the Town Square would have on the Planning Board’s decision. Mr. Noyes stated the dispute should be resolved prior to recording and in his opinion, prior to approval. Chair Smith opened the hearing to public comment.
Mr. Welch had two comments. First, he wanted to know how a proper decision could be make by the Planning Board when not one member went on the site walk to view the property. He noted that based on conversation tonight, there are drainage issues. He felt the Planning Board needed to have a sight walk. Secondly, he asked for clarification on Plan Note 5 regarding Parcel A not being part of the State DES Subdivision approval process. Specifically he asked for an explanation of ‘an existing lot of record’. Chair Smith stated it a lot that has been recorded. Mr. Landry explained that when the plan was submitted to the State, Parcel A was treated as a separate parcel. Mr. Welch asked Mr. Witham if there would be a note added to the plat stating the homes would be built in the style of
historical reproductions. Mr. Witham noted he had had a conversation with Mr. Welch in which he had indicated that the home right off the Square would fit with the characteristics of the Town Square, however, he would need to consult with his Attorney regarding any other deed restrictions. Mr. Welch stated that in the original documents Town Square was 160 rods X 160 rods. He considers all of that the Square. Chair Smith stated that the Town does not have an historical district, which would dictate what could be build. He felt the best that could be done is for the board to try to work with the developer in regards to how the homes will look. Mr. Welch noted that there are restrictions for many items such as water sprinkler systems, the cemetery easement, and the 25’ road easement being added to the deed. He stated he was just asking for consideration for the rural area with regard to the homes being built. Mr. Curry stated he
sympathized with Mr. Welch and that if the applicant wanted to offer that up, that would be fantastic, however, there were no regulations compelling him to do so. Mr. Witham stated that two (2) other homes had been built, on the two consecutive lots to the south of his proposed subdivision, during his time in this home, and neither had deed restrictions, nor are they historical reproductions. Chair Smith stated that any notes regarding they style of homes being consistent with the rural nature of the Square that the applicant wished to put on the plat would be welcome. He felt, at the very least, Mr. Witham could notate his intent for the home on proposed Lot 37-2. Attorney Boldt referred to it as horse trading, stating that the faster and easier they get through the boundary dispute, the more willing they would be to put in restrictions above and beyond the restrictions already in place. Chair Smith noted that to be shaky ground. Attorney Boldt
acknowledge Chair Smith. Mr. Curry stated again that the cases fall under two different jurisdictions. Attorney Boldt stated they have many things on the table at the moment and no one is removing that from the table. Chair Smith stated that is something to be taken up outside of the Planning Board. Attorney Boldt stated that he was suggesting they would consider restrictions under the right circumstances. At Mr. Gylfphe’s inquiry, Mr. Witham stated he had not been in touch with a builder and had no current plans to contact one. Ms. Chase stated there had been many rumors about what was going to happen with the original homestead. She asked what the intent for that piece of property was. Chair Smith stated that is not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board at this time. Mr. Witham informed Ms. Chase she could contact him anytime and he would speak with her directly.
Mr. Splaine voiced his own concern at the concern of drainage shown at this meeting tonight, stating he is downhill, next door and will end up with all the water run-off. He asked what protection he has against getting flooded. Chair Smith stated he did not have an answer for Mr. Splaine. Attorney Boldt stated that could be addressed by a reference to the plan. He stated that is why there are building codes, noting that all of the property adjacent to the Splaines was in the confines of Lot 37 which is not being re-subdivided. He indicated that the buildable area closest to the Splaines was proposed Lot 37-5, which has a setback buffer. Attorney Boldt stated that the purpose of the setback buffer is so that the ground can do what the ground normally does. Chair Smith confirmed with Attorney Smith
that the characteristics of land which currently abuts the Splaines is not going to change. Mr. Curry stated this could be addressed when the board decided whether or not to require the erosion and sediment control report. Attorney Boldt stated that although he did not attend the site walk it was his belief that the Conservation Commission has specifically checked this issue out. Ms. Kimball stated that the Conservation Commission does not have a recommendation regarding the Splaine property. They felt that there was quite a bit of space, however, it was quite wet during the site walk. She noted for the record that they have concerns with the back lot, proposed Lot 37-1, and feel that it interrupts too many wetlands in the region. Ms. Abrams noted that it would be impossible for the Conservation Commission to project what may happen to the Splaine property without knowledge of building plans such as length of driveways.
Chair Smith read for the record the request for a waiver to Section V-A-15 requiring an erosion and sedimaent control plan submitted by Attorney Boldt.
Mr. Curry made a motion to deny the waiver as written for the following reasons: 1) the board is not qualified to make a judgment on whether or not the subdivision will create more run-off; 2) the board has heard from an abutter who has this concern; 3) this particular regulation does apply; and 4) the land is already sloping in that direction. Mr. Bock seconded the motion.
Mr. Curry stated he would like to hear from the applicant before the vote. Attorney Boldt stated he thought this was an unfortunate result of the Planning Board not attending the site walk. His understanding was that the Conservation Commission was not concerned with the water flow. He felt it was a layer of expense that was unwarranted. Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp if there was a less costly way to get the information and set the members’ minds at ease. Ms. Beauchamp stated she had talked with Mr. Landry and informed him she was looking to see swales or anything that will help slow the flow of the water. She noted that he did not come back with anything on the plat, therefore the issue was still open. Mr. Landry stated the majority of the water coming onto the Splaine’s property is
coming down the driveway, noting they have installed catch basins to help correct the problem. Ms. Splaine stated that water does come down the driveway, however, most comes from the top of the field. Chair Smith asked Mr. Witham if he would be willing to provide the Planning Board the opportunity for another site walk. Chair Smith read for the record Section V-A-15 and stated that after reading the Section in its entirety, an erosion and sediment plan would not provide them with what they were looking for. Mr. Curry stated he would still like Mr. Witham to consider another site walk.
Mr. Gylfphe, speaking as a member of Pawtuckaway Lake Advisory Committee, stated that Fernald Brook 2 is of major concern in regards to phosphates getting into the lake. He informed the board that the start of the watershed for Fernald Brook 2 is this property and he felt the board should have concern about water run-off. He then informed Chair Smith that he had to leave the meeting.
Chair Smith called the vote. Mr. Curry, Ms. Mills, Mr. Bock, and Mr. Davidson voted in favor of the motion. Chair Smith voted against. Motion passed 4-1.
Mr. Curry asked for a summary of what is outstanding. Chair Smith stated the erosion and sediment control plan, driveway permit for proposed Lot 37-1, a letter of recommendation from the Fire Department, and the easements for Ledge Farm Road and the cemetery walk way are still outstanding. Mr. Bock asked Ms. Chauvey to send another memo to the Fire Department. Chair Smith stated the Planning Board also needed to collect escrow funds of $250.00 from the applicants for the third-party review.
Mr. Bock asked if the Planning Board intended to follow up on the site walk. Mr. Davidson stated he would like another opportunity. Mr. Witham stated he would be willing to provide the Planning Board members with a site walk on Saturday, May 5, 2007 at 8:00 AM. Mr. Bock, Chair Smith, and Mr. Davidson plan to attend.
Mr. Curry made a motion to recess the hearing of a 6-lot subdivision application from Jonathan & Mary Paige Witham, Ledge Farm Road, Map 59 Lot 37, Case #P07-03-SUB until May 16, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Public Hearing – Lot Line Adjustment Application (final approval) – Bernard adams, Map 29 Lot 5, 228 Stage Road – deborah Stevens, james Fernald, and frederick Fernald, Map 29 Lot 8, Mulligan Forest, CASE #P07-05-LL:
Chair Smith opened the hearing at 9:55 PM.
Chair Smith read for the record a letter of support from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
Mr. Curry made a motion to approve the lot line adjustment application from and between Bernard Adams, 228 Stage Road, Map 29 Lot 5 and Deborah Stevens, James Fernald, and Frederick Fernald, Mulligan Forest, Map 29 Lot 8, Case #P07-05-LL.. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
The mylar and plats were signed. Mr. Adams submitted an application and associated fees for a subdivision and left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval) – PAUL & LESLIE LONGUEIL – COOPER HILL ROAD – MAP 16 LOT 5 – CASE #P07-04-SIT:
Chair Smith opened the public meeting at 10:05 PM.
Attorney Boldt, representing the Longueils, requested a continuance because he had just this evening received some information from Ms. Beauchamp that he needed to research. He asked to be put on the agenda for May 16, 2007. Attorney Boldt noted that Ms. Beauchamp had made reference to a plan that he was not aware was recorded and he wanted to review it. He was not sure if it would be substantive or not.
Ms. Mills made a motion to recess the public meeting for the acceptance of a site plan review application from Paul and Leslie Longueil, Cooper Hill Road, Map 15 Lot 5 until May 16, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Public Hearing Continuance – Subdivision application (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval of a 2-lot subdivision) – RSL Layout & Design for Blue Fin Development – Kennard Road – Map 11 Lot 7 – Case #P06-09-SUB:
Chair Smith opened the public hearing at 10:10 PM
Chair Smith gave a history of this case for new members of the board and read the denial from the Zoning Board.
Mr. Bibeau spoke in representation of RSL. He stated Ms. Wiggin from DES has informed them that with conditions, she will approve the new dredge & fill. Mr. Bibeau informed the board that the impact area of the original crossing was 2200 sq. ft and the new one is 2230 sq. ft. Chair Smith stated he thought the crossing had just about doubled. Mr. Bibeau stated that is incorrect, noting that it will cost twice as much to build considering the required box culvert. A current (05/01/07) plat was reviewed by Mr. Curry. He noted that the plot plans for DES are different than the plot plans for the Planning Board, each lot changed by approximately .25 acres leaving the same total acreage. Mr. Curry indicated the board would need new plats once the State had approved the application. Chair Smith
stated the signature box would need more lines, also.
Chair Smith read for the record the response from Attorney Teague regarding placing a restriction in the deed that the curb-cut approved for the second crossing could never be used.
Chair Smith stated acceptance has not happened because the PB was waiting for ZBA approval. When that did not happen, they waited for a new dredge & fill. Applicant has been working with DES and the Conservation Commission to come to an agreement for the new dredge & fill. Beyond DES approval, the following is still needed: State approval, driveway permits, new plats.
Mr. Curry made a motion to recess the hearing of a 2-lot subdivision application from RSL Layout & Design for Blue Fin Development until May 16, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Public Hearing Continuance – Subdivision Application (compliance review and final approval of a 3-lot subdivision) – Jonathan & Lisa daniels – Cooper Hill Road – Map 1 Lot 70– Case #P06-14-SUB:
Chair Smith opened the public hearing at 11:10 PM.
Mr. Landry handed out new plats and spoke in representation of the Daniels. He stated they had received DES wetlands approval on April 17, 2007, and State Subdivision approval on April 23, 2007. Mr. Landry stated that he believed that was the only outstanding issue. Ms. Chauvey confirmed for Ms. Beauchamp that there was a copy of a deed from Mildred Cooper, which the Planning Board had requested, in the file. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed with Mr. Landry that the driveway notation had been corrected as requested.
Mr. Curry made a motion to approve the application for a 3-lot subdivision from Jonathan & Lisa Daniels, Cooper Hill Road, Map 1 Lot 70, Case #P06-14-SUB. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
The mylar and plats were signed. Mr. Daniels paid $95 approval fees. The applicants left the meeting.
other business:
Mr. Curry made reference to the confusion earlier in tracking the progress and outstanding issues for Blue Fin, stating he felt there needs to be a better process. Chair Smith stated it is the applicant’s responsibility to know what information has been provided by the board and to act on it. He noted that this is the third time someone new has been before the Planning Board in this case. Ms. Chauvey stated a ledger in the front of each file would help follow up on everything that is required/requested of anyone. Mr. Curry suggested the Chair asked the applicant at the beginning of the meeting if they have their list, if the answer is no recess the case. Mr. Davidson agreed with Mr. Curry. Mr. Bock requested Ms. Beauchamp’s opinion on the matter. Ms. Beauchamp stated she felt the board
needed to be consistent and firm. She felt people would get used to it, noting that most are returning surveyors. Chair Smith noted that the situation Mr. Curry had just described would be tenfold for a 35-lot subdivision. Ms. Beauchamp felt if someone came in with an incomplete application, they should be told to come back when it is complete according to regulations. She further stated that if someone does not meet compliance, they should be asked how much time they require to comply, and the case should be continued accordingly. Mr. Curry stated it is not always that black and white, sometimes discussion is required. Mr. Bock asked if the applicant is aware of what is required. Ms. Chauvey stated that when someone comes in for an application, she directs them in what she knows. Ms. Beauchamp then reviews the file for completeness. Ms. Beauchamp stated that applicants from other towns often call her for explanations or
guidance when they receive the completeness review but she does not receive calls from Nottingham. Mr. Curry believes that is because people think they can manipulate the board.
Ms. Mills excused herself, stating she had recently been ill and needed to leave. She informed the other members of the board that she had just signed a teaching contract and would not be available for the next eight weeks. She asked the board to keep her informed during her absence and left the meeting.
Ms. Chauvey informed the board that she has a scheduling problem with Wednesdays through the end of June. She stated she would come in to set up the meeting room and leave the tape recorder ready but would then have to leave. Ms. Chauvey requested that Chair Smith turn the recorder on at the start of the meeting and stated she would return around 7:30. Secondly, she informed the board that she had approached Ms. Carlson, the town’s Bookkeeper, about the $20 petty cash fund approved at the last meeting and was informed that there are no petty cash funds at the auditor’s request. Mr. Bock asked Ms. Chauvey to remind him to check on this. Ms. Chauvey reminded member of the board of procedures put in place last year for the handling of Planning Board/Secretary issues, stating she is uncomfortable with
only one member following up. She stated the uncomfortableness was compounded by the fact the he is a Selectmen’s Representative to the board. Mr. Davidson suggested a joint meeting to look at what future needs may be. Mr. Bock stated that C.I.P. is responsible for looking at future needs. He suggested Ms. Chauvey make a list identifying how the board can help.
Mr. Curry made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 11:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
