NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2007
PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING
Approved 08/15/07
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Gail Mills, Secretary
Mr. Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Representative Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Bob Davidson (arrived @7:40 PM)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernard Adams, Applicant
Mr. Roscoe Blaisdell, Surveyor
Mr. Skip Seaverns, Nottingham Resident
Mr. Terry Bonser, Nottingham Resident
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Secretary to the Planning Board
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM.
PUBLIC MEETING – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 2 lot subdivision) – ADAMS, BERNARD – 228 STAGE ROAD – MAP 29 LOT 5 – CASE #P07-07-SUB:
Chair Smith opened the public meeting at 7:40 PM
Mr. Blaisdell spoke in representation of Mr. Adams. He reported to the Planning Board that he had not yet received approval on the driveway application but had had a conversation with Mr. Garland and was aware that the State was going to require them to close the northern end of the pre-existing circular driveway.
Chair Smith read letters from the Conservation Commission and the Fire Department.
Mr. Blaisdell informed the Board that he had removed his personal flood line delineation from the plat and the only one remaining was from the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the public meeting of a two (2) lot subdivision (acceptance, compliance and final approval) from Bernard Adams, 228 Stage Road, Map 29 Lot 5, to August 15, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Chauvey informed Chair Smith that no escrow account had been set up for this application because it had not been accepted, however, compliance has been done and billing has been received from Strafford Regional Planning Commission. Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp and Ms. Chauvey to get a final cost to Mr. Adams prior to the next meeting so that he could come prepared to pay the fees.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Chauvey informed the board that she would like to have another discussion regarding 3rd party billing, however, was not prepared for that this evening.
Mr. Bock stated he was not prepared to vote on the minutes this evening due to lack of attendance of Board Members who were present at the meetings.
Mr. Seaverns apologized to the board for making comments during the Adams meeting on July 18th, noting that he had thought the application had been accepted and that the meeting was open for comment. He informed the board that the reason he had thought it had been accepted was because they had performed a site-walk, noting that site-walks are part of compliance. At Mr. Bock’s request, Mr. Seaverns and Ms. Beauchamp clarified the Planning Board process in regards to acceptance, compliance, and final approval.
Mr. Seaverns indicated that he believes the Planning Board must find a way to do 15 minute application acceptance meetings, noting that if the application is not complete, it should be returned. Mr. Bock stated that he was of the understanding that expediting the acceptance process was one of the reasons the Planning Board had contracted with Strafford Regional Planning Commission. He inquired as to how Mr. Adams’ case had gotten as far as it had with no acceptance. Mr. Seaverns stated that some issues that negate acceptance seem trivial and thus far the board has been unwilling to deny or return the application. Mr. Gylfphe, speaking to Mr. Bock, responded that the surveyor had come in dragging his feet, noting he did not have enough on his plat and had tried to slide through without a driveway permit and
without the correct flood line. He added that the surveyor had tried to get the plans through the way he wanted them and not in accordance with Nottingham regulations. Mr. Davidson stated he did not believe comments of this nature should be made.
Ms. Beauchamp informed Mr. Bock that there is a checklist of required items and also a list of items in the subdivision regulations that tells the applicant what is required for submission of a complete application, noting that all else is compliance. Mr. Bock, noting that Ms. Beauchamp and Ms. Chauvey are not empowered to tell an applicant how things need to be, inquired as to how an applicant can get more information prior to submitting the application. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the new application includes a checklist and Ms. Chauvey has been given the authority to tell the applicant that items are missing and the application is not complete. Ms. Chauvey informed Mr. Bock that the applicants also have two (2) other options to appear before the board for ideas and advice, one being a preliminary hearing in which there is
no charge and the board cannot review plans and the second being a design review for which there is a charge and the board can review plans. Mr. Gylfphe informed Mr. Bock that the Local Government Center addressed these issues in their Law Lecture Series sometime within the past two years. Ms. Chauvey stated she would check the office and pass the book on to Mr. Bock if she found it. Mr. Seaverns informed Mr. Bock that the Planning Board has a tendency to work with the applicant instead of denying the application. Mr. Bock thanked members for the clarification.
Ms. Beauchamp handed out copies of the proposed Subdivision Regulations, noting that the light colored highlights are changes based on recent conversations the board members have had and the dark colored highlights were items that had not yet been discussed or had not been discussed in a long time. Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp to e-mail copies to Mr. Harding and Ms. Mills. Ms. Beauchamp stated she would e-mail them on Monday afternoon, when she returned to her office.
Ms. Chauvey asked for clarification of what she should be providing to people who come in for home occupations. She informed the Board that a Ms. Galvin had come in to inquire about a home occupation at her daughter’s home on Stage Road, stating that she and her daughter want to sell children’s clothing and cloth diapers. They want to turn the garage into the retail store. Ms. Galvin would be an employee of the business but does not reside at the residence and they wish to have a sign, both of which would make this a major home occupation. Ms. Chauvey stated she had given Ms. Galvin a Site Plan Review Application, Site Plan Review Regulations, and the Home Occupation Information sheet. Chair Smith felt that the Zoning Ordinance would provide better information for a home occupation, noting that the
Site Plan Regulations are more for commercial business. Ms. Chauvey stated that she had read the Zoning Ordinances with Ms. Galvin, which gives the definitions/standards for minor and major home occupations but was confused as to what application the applicant should be filling out and what the applicant needs to submit with the application.
Chair Smith stated he had thought that there was a Major Home Occupation Application. Ms. Beauchamp replied that there is a one page information sheet, however, it is missing requirements such as abutters list and advertising fees. Mr. Seaverns stated that that is where Site Plan comes in. Ms. Chauvey noted that Site Plan requires a survey and other expenses that she did not feel were necessary for submission in this situation. Mr. Seaverns stated that there are areas of the Site Plan Review that are not applicable to home occupations. Chair Smith felt that the board should review the Home Occupation Information Sheet and make changes if needed. Mr. Seaverns stated he felt the board still should use the Site Plan Review as a basis for whatever they intend to do and that they should just tell the applicant
what is not needed. Ms. Chauvey stated that she needs to be able to tell the applicant what is to be submitted. Mr. Seaverns stated that he did not believe that was her responsibility. Ms. Chauvey indicated she felt it was her job to help the applicant with the application. Mr. Seaverns felt that it could be a problem if something came back on the Planning Board or the Building Inspector based on a statement made by Ms. Chauvey. He stated that the Board should be dealing with such things. Ms. Chauvey agreed that the Board should be dealing with the acceptance and approval, but felt that she should be able to provide the people with the proper application and the information to complete the application. Mr. Seaverns felt that she had that information already. Ms. Chauvey stated that she would not be asking for guidance if she felt she understood what was required. She noted, again, that Site Plan Review Regulations require a
survey and asked if she should tell the applicant that she needs a survey. Mr. Seaverns said no, she should provide the applicant with the regulations and tell them that these are the rules and regulations that the Board operates under and let the applicant decide. Ms. Chauvey stated that is not fair to the applicants since Site Plan Review Regulations state it is required. Mr. Seaverns stated that the applicant needs to be smart enough to know exactly what they want to do. He added that a survey is a handy tool anytime anyone does anything on their property, noting that the board does not know if the applicant’s garage is 10’ from the boundary. He further stated that once the application comes before the Board it may only require a site walk.
Chair Smith stated he wanted to review the Home Occupation Information Sheet. Mr. Seaverns stated that an application is not required until such time as the Board deems it to be a major home occupation. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Zoning Ordinance calls out criteria for a major home occupation. Mr. Seaverns agreed, stating those are the things that trigger it. He stated that people still have to go through the process.
Chair Smith indicated he was not familiar with the application used for the last home occupation. Ms. Chauvey informed him that it was the Site Plan Review Application, noting she had been unaware of the Home Occupation Information Sheet, at that time. Chair Smith stated he felt the Home Occupation Information Sheet was adequate. Ms. Beauchamp felt it was adequate for a minor home occupation. Mr. Seaverns stated that minor home occupations do not have an application. Ms. Beauchamp disagreed. Ms. Chauvey left to get the Home Occupation Information Sheet for members to review. She returned and handed out copies to all.
Chair Smith noted that the Home Occupation Information Sheet required the applicant to include a sketch of the property. He stated it appeared that the only thing missing was the requirement of an abutters list. Ms. Chauvey noted there is no space for Tax Map/Lot numbers. Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp if she could make changes to the Home Occupation Information Sheet. Ms. Beauchamp stated she could not. Ms. Chauvey stated she could. Chair Smith felt the application needed to be two pages. Ms. Chauvey stated she had some changes she wanted to make for Planning Board documentation such as including the Town Seal. Mr. Davidson and Ms. Beauchamp agreed, stating that documentation from the Planning Board should look official. Chair Smith asked Ms. Chauvey if she could bring a copy to the
next meeting. Ms. Chauvey stated she would look at other NH towns to see what they have for home occupation applications and incorporate pertinent information/requirements/data into the Nottingham application and would bring it to the next meeting. Chair Smith asked her to print copies from other towns to bring with her. Mr. Davidson stated that the board could do a rough draft from the items Ms. Chauvey brought with her.
Referring to the Home Occupation Information Sheet, Mr. Bock asked for clarification of ‘sewage loading’. Mr. Gylfphe responded that it related to things such as hair salons where there may be chemicals and so forth being washed into the septic systems. Chair Smith stated that the Board wants to be aware of what affect the business will have on the septic system. Mr. Gylfphe noted that the State, also, has requirements pertaining to this area. Mr. Bock confirmed with members that the term relates to what is going into the system.
Mr. Seaverns informed Ms. Chauvey that it may be helpful for her to pull all past Planning Board, Zoning Board, and building files on a property when an inquiry for application comes in on that property, noting that those files will have pertinent data such as past decisions made on the property, driveway information, septic information and so forth. He felt it would be good information for her and/or the board to have if the applicant was trying to snow their way through. Ms. Chauvey and Ms. Beauchamp did not agree with pulling the Building Inspector’s files. Mr. Seaverns felt memos should be sent to the Building Inspector requesting copies of the files, noting that they are public record and should not be refused. Ms. Chauvey stated she did not feel the requests would be refused. Mr. Bock stated he felt
that would be an interesting discussion to have, noting that the Building Inspector now does code enforcement and there may be privacy issues. Mr. Seaverns stated that privacy issues should not be in the Building Inspectors files. He stated, again, that they are public files. Mr. Bock stated that he did not disagree, he just needed time to think the process over.
Referring back to what should be submitted with the application, Ms. Chauvey stated that she did not understand how the Board was going to get into the position of 15 minute acceptance meetings if she could not provide completeness assistance to an applicant coming in for a major home occupation. Chair Smith stated that the current process is for the applicant to complete the Home Occupation Information Sheet and to supply an abutters list. Ms. Beauchamp stated that fees would need to be collected for a public notice, also.
Mail was distributed and reviewed.
Chair Smith read for the record a letter from the Northwood Building Inspector regarding Mr. Longueil’s proposed driveways for Tax Map 16 Lot 15A.
Ms. Chauvey asked if she could put a request for alternates in the community newsletter. The board agreed.
Chair Smith read for the record a memo from the Building Inspector regarding the change in State’s Building Code exempting buildings less than 200 sq. ft. from building permits. Nottingham Building Code and Zoning Ordinances were more stringent at less than 144 sq. ft., however the State will be reducing it to 120 sq. ft. as of August 17, 2007.
Ms. Chauvey reported that she has not heard from Mr. Daigle regarding the bonds for Gerrior Lane Trust, The Homestead Development.
Chair Smith perused the Court’s findings in the Neighborhood Guardian case. Mr. Bock informed the board that the case had been dismissed.
Ms. Chauvey informed the board that she had spoken with Mary Currier at Rockingham County Conservation District and that Ray Winninger was going to do a written report on Sophia Way. Ms. Currier had stated that it would not be until after August 13th, however.
Chair Smith read a bulletin for the OEP 2007 Fall Conference being held on October 13th.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
