NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JUNE 27, 2007
PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING
Approved 07/18/07
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair
Mr. Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Representative
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen’s Representative Alternate
Ms. Gail Mills, Secretary
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Bob Davidson (arrived @7:25)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Charles Brown
Atty. Christopher Boldt, DTC
Atty. John Teague, Upton & Hatfield
Mr. Joseph Welch
Mr. Bill Netishen
Ms. Deborah Stevens
Mr. Trey Sleeper
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Richard Ladd, RSL Layout & Design
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM.
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 7:07 PM.
Mr. Bock stepped down and asked Ms. Bonser to sit in his place for this case.
Mr. Ladd spoke in representation of Blue Fin Development. He presented new plats to the Board, noting he had cut the buildable area off where it bottle-necked below the 50’ foot requirement. He stated that this lot now shows two buildable areas, adding that the one in back meets the 60,000 contiguous sq. ft. area by itself. He added poorly drained and very poorly drained soils to the legend, along with some Monumentation that will be set after the driveway is constructed. He changed the bound at the intersection of the properties to the road to a granite bound. He added Note 13 for the turn-around. Regarding Note 12, Mr. Ladd stated he had changed it to reference the date of the road acceptance because the easement had not yet been recorded by the Town.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept and approve the application for a 2-lot subdivision from RSL Layout & Design on behalf of Blue Fin Development, Kennard Road, Map 11 Lot 7, Case #P06-09-SUB. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Beauchamp noted for the record that Strafford Regional Planning Commission had not reviewed the final plans for this case. Ms. Bonser stepped down and Mr. Bock sat for the remainder of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (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 public hearing at 7:12 PM.
Mr. Landry submitted a revised plat. Attorney Boldt spoke on behalf of the Withams, stating that the new plat met the requested changes made by the Planning Board at the last meeting. He noted for the record that this plat was tendered with the reservation of rights in case there should be an appeal of the approval they were hoping to obtain this evening or an appeal of the boundary line agreement that they expected would follow the approval of the subdivision. He clarified, saying that should someone bring an appeal, the Withams were reserving the right to retrieve proposed Lot 37-2 and Parcel A; if no one should appeal within the 30 days, his clients agreed to move forward with the newly presented plan.
Referring to the new plat, Attorney Boldt noted that proposed Lot 37-2 was eliminated and that piece of property would remain part of the homestead, making this subdivision a 5-lot subdivision. He read, for the record, the new label for Parcel A, noting that Parcel B has been incorporated into the main house lot. The main house lot is now 11.16 acres and as a condition of approval, shall not be further subdivided. The remaining proposed lots have been renumbered accordingly. Attorney Boldt pointed out that “Mary” had been added to Mrs. Witham’s name as requested by the Planner. He read Note 5, which he indicated had been shared with Attorney Donovan, also, for the record. Note 7, which has been changed to include the Nottingham Fire Department’s request of width and turnaround for
the driveways, still references proposed Lot 37-5, and there is no longer a proposed Lot 37-5, therefore it will be stricken from the mylar. Note 8 was added and states that any homes built upon these lots shall be a single family residence and will not be a mobile home, a modular home, or a ranch-style home. Note 9 has been added to say that prior to the issuance of a building permit for new home construction, the permit applicant will supply a site-specific drainage study/control plan showing that such construction will not increase the water flow exiting the lot. Note 10 has been added to say that all applicable lighting ordinances will be followed. Note 11 states that all stone walls shown on the plat may not be removed. Note 12 has been added stating that all septic systems will be behind the homes unless prohibited by soil or water conditions. Attorney Boldt stated the only change on the second sheet of the plat was on the lot that is now
proposed Lot 37-2; the house box has been moved to the front of the 4K area.
For the record, Attorney Boldt submitted a copy of what they refer to as the Landry Square overlay which shows the impact of the 30-rod square issues and how many buildings would be affected by it. He also submitted a copy of the Tax Map which shows that Lot 37 goes all the way to the intersection and that Town Square is labeled on the opposite side of the intersection. Attorney Boldt stated that the boundary line shown on the plat is the boundary line between Parcel A and the Withams’ Lot 37. He supplied drafts of easements for the cemetery and the road, noting that he had requested an indemnity agreement. Attorney Teague stated that he has a concern that the Town’s liability policy would not cover an indemnity agreement made on this easement and that the Town would end up taking responsibility for this
small piece of land without insurance coverage. He felt that the easement was for a small piece of land and would not open either the Town or the Withams’ up to a large liability; however his advice for the Planning Board was not to sign an easement deed containing an indemnity agreement. Ms. Bonser asked if there is a law requiring access to a cemetery on private property. Attorney Boldt stated that the family can petition the Selectmen for access. Ms. Bonser asked members of the Board if they would be willing to forego the easement to the cemetery and let the family come to the Selectmen at a later date, so this application could be approved. Mr. Bock asked Mr. Brown to speak on this issue. Mr. Brown stated he has not addressed this specific issue with the insurance provider. Attorney Boldt stated his clients were willing to eliminate the indemnity clause. The Board thanked the Withams.
At Chair Smith’s request, Mr. Bock stated that the Selectmen’s meeting focused on the issue of the Town Square. They had believed that the research would clearly show what was owned by the Town, but it did not. Mr. Bock stated that a majority of the Selectmen felt the commitment on the part of the applicant was adequate to give a start to resolving the issue of the Town Square. They felt that the applicants’ presentation was palatable. Selectman Bonser stated that there was no clear line. They felt the best solution and best use of resources was to come to an agreeable property line. She further stated that resources will now be devoted to establishing the other three corners of the square. Selectman Netishen respectfully disagreed, stating, in his judgment, the line is clearly
established.
Mr. Gylfphe stated that the southeast corner has been established by a lot line adjustment, noting there are only two more corners to be defined.
Chair Smith stated it is his understanding that the Withams, and previous owners, have been taxed on this property. Attorney Boldt agreed referencing the Town’s Tax Map.
Chair Smith opened discussion to the public. Mr. Welch stated he would like to have the Selectmen’s decision process complete. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Tax Maps are inconclusive regarding taxation. He stated he is concerned with the lot line agreement, and does not know if the Selectmen have the authority to do that without the vote of the people. He felt it was easy for a surveyor to draw a line, but that line does not define the Town Square. Attorney Teague stated that the Selectmen have the authority to settle disputes, they do no have the authority to dispense of Town owned property. He further stated that there are no clear boundary lines and it is his opinion that this is a dispute. Chair Smith stated the Town is still moving forward with determining the Square and if sometime in the
future a document should arise which determines the Town Square, discussions could then be taken up with the property owner. Mr. Sleeper stated he felt the Tax Maps are no indication of property bounds.
Ms. Beauchamp informed the Planning Board that SRPC has not reviewed the final plans. Attorney Boldt offered to allow the time for Ms. Beauchamp to review the final plan.
At 8:00 PM, Mr. Davidson made a motion to recess the public hearing on this case until 8:45 PM to allow Ms. Beauchamp time to review the final plat. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Plats for Blue Fin were signed at this time. Chair Smith opened the discussion on the Epping subdivision at this time. See below.
At 9:05 PM, Chair Smith reopened the public hearing of the five-lot subdivision application from Jonathan & Mary Paige Witham, Ledge Farm Road, Map 59 Lot 37, Case #P07-03-SUB.
Ms. Beauchamp’s review addressed two spelling errors. Attorney Boldt stated they would write over the errors on the mylar. Attorney Boldt stated that the driveway for proposed Lot 37-2 was the original proposed shared driveway, noting that it would remain that way and the people who purchased that lot would possibly have to share the driveway with the parent house lot. Mr. Bock asked what use the parent lot would have for that driveway. Attorney Boldt stated it may someday go to an outbuilding. He confirmed the applicant was going to strike through the indemnity agreements in the easements. Attorney Boldt inquired about third party review fees. Chair Smith stated that billing was only available through May 31, 2007, and that the plans would not be recorded until the fees were paid upon final
billing. Attorney Boldt stated he did not want them recorded until the 30 day time limit for appeals has passed.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the five-lot subdivision application from Jonathan and Mary Paige Witham, Ledge Farm Road, Map 59 Lot 37, Case #P07-03-SUB as shown on the plat, noting that the Planning Board has no argument with the new line delineating Parcel A. The boundary agreement and subdivision plat are to be recorded simultaneously, and the parties agree this will not take place until after the expiration of the appeal period and only if no appeal is filed, giving the reservations of rights to both parties. This motion is to include the statement that should an appeal be forthcoming and the original six-lot plat dated 05-16-07 be brought forth again, the originally proposed Lot 37-2 does not conform to the Nottingham Subdivision Rules and Regulations and should be redesigned. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Plats were signed at this time.
DISCUSSION – JOHN BARRY – CONDITIONALLY APPROVED 3-LOT SUBDIVISION IN EPPING
Chair Smith opened the discussion at 8:40 PM
Chair Smith handed out copies of the plan and informed the other members of the board that Epping had conditionally approved this subdivision. They were requesting a sign-off from Nottingham. Mr. Bock asked if there would be any development in Nottingham. Chair Smith stated that according to the plat, there was no development currently and that the land in Nottingham appeared to be wetlands. Mr. Gylfphe confirmed that it is wetlands.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to send a letter to Epping approving the subdivision with the conditions that there will be no development on the Nottingham portion and that the Nottingham portion would remain contiguous with the parent lot. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
By-Laws
Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp if she had copies of the By-Laws. Ms. Beauchamp stated she had only her original copy. Board Members all gathered around.
Chair Smith stated Section 8 had been added and read the other wording changes. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the only thing she disagrees with is the write-up on the site walks. Mr. Bock confirmed with Ms. Beauchamp that due to the way it is written, if there is a situation where all Board Members wished to attend the site walk, separate site walks will need to be scheduled.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the By-Laws as amended. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Chair Smith stated he felt the Planning Board needed to draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen indicating that the Building Inspector needs to follow all subdivision regulations when reviewing a lot on an approved subdivision. Ms. Beauchamp noted that the RSA does not limit it to subdivision regulations, it includes site plan review, also. Chair Smith felt the letter should include the RSA in the letter. Mr. Bock asked if there is an issue with this. Chair Smith responded that there is. Ms. Beauchamp stated she had been requested to get clarification on RSA 676:13. Ms. Mills stated she had written a letter to the Board requesting they take some action. She further stated that she has received many comments from residents voicing concern that Town Boards and Officials are not following the RSAs. Mr. Bock requested that the RSA be quoted in whatever was sent to the Selectmen.
Ms. Mills made a motion to draft a letter to the Selectmen regarding the Building Inspectors duties per RSA 676:13. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Mills, Chair Smith, Mr. Harding, and Mr. Davidson voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Bock abstained. Motion passed 5-0-1.
Mr. Davidson made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
