NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 19, 2007
PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING
NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE BOARD
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair
Mr. Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair
Ms. Gail Mills, Secretary
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Representative
Mr. Bob Davidson
Mr. Scott Canney
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Vern Dingman, Surveyor Ms. Kathleen Matthews, Abutter Mr. Thomas Baker, Abutter
Ms. Grace LaPointe, Applicant Ms. Marilyn Fischer, Abutter Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Steve White, Applicant Mr. Michael Fischer, Abutter Mr. Peter Landry, Surveyor
Mr. Sam Demeritt, Conservation Commission Mr. Todd Allen, Abutter Mr. Terry Bonser, Applicant
Ms. Deb Stevens, Conservation Commission Ms. Tracey Allen, Abutter Ms. Mary Bonser, Applicant
Ms. Sue Mooney, Conservation Commission Ms. Lin Kameris, Abutter
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Secretary to the Planning Board
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:15 PM.
MINUTES
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 28, 2007 meeting as written. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Copies of the minutes for December 5, 2007 and December 12, 2007 were not available for members at meeting time.
PUBLIC MEETINGS/HEARINGS
PUBLIC MEETING – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 3-lot subdivision) – PAUL AND LESLIE LONGUIEL REVOCABLE TRUST OF 1996, PAUL & LESLIE LONGUEIL, TRUSTEES – COOPER HILL ROAD – TAX MAP 16 LOT 15A – CASE #P07-15-SUB:
Chair Smith opened the public meeting at 7:18 PM.
Chair Smith read for the record a request for continuance to March 2008 from Mr. Longueil due to his denial from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to continue the public meeting for acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 3-lot subdivision application from Paul and Leslie Longueil for the Paul and Leslie Longueil Revocable Trust of 1996, Cooper Hill Road, Tax Map 16 Lot 15A, Case #P07-15-SUB to March 19, 2008 at 7:15 PM. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (compliance and final approval of a 2-lot subdivision) – LAPOINTE, GRACE – 131 RAYMOND ROAD – MAP 63 LOT 80-1 – CASE #P07-11-SUB.
Chair Smith opened the public hearing at 7:20 PM.
Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board if they require a surveyors stamp for Certification of Monumentation or if they accept a signature, noting that the letter submitted states the monuments have been set. ??? Chair Smith read for the record the fire department recommendation (see file). Mr. Dingman stated that he had been in contact with Ms. Chauvey and had corrected the dimensions of the driveway and turnaround accordingly. Chair Smith asked if Mr. Dingman planned to note the sprinkler recommendation on the plat. Mr. Dingman stated that it is only a recommendation and there is a working cistern within close proximity to the lot.
Ms. Beauchamp asked Mr. Dingman if he had brought the draft easement. Mr. Dingman stated that Mr. White’s attorney had been working on the easement. Mr. White stated that he is not able to get an easement deed until he has a signed plan. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Board is looking for a draft of the language that will be used. Mr. Dingman stated that, in his experience, the Town does not concern itself with the easement deed unless they are the ones receiving the easement, which is not the case in this situation. Chair Smith stated that the Planning Board usually has easement
language prior to approval. Mr. Dingman stated he did not think the Town would want to spend money to have their attorney review a private easement between two lot owners. Chair Smith acknowledged and agreed that the easement is not to the Town of Nottingham. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the board regularly takes easements for shared driveways on the lot line. Chair Smith stated they do not.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant has approved driveway access. Mr. Dingman stated the application has been submitted but they have not gotten approval. Chair Smith acknowledged that the existing driveway has an approval and that the application is for a change of use, not a new driveway. He asked the other members how they felt about approving the application without having the driveway approval. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he has no problem with approving the application without the driveway approval. Mr. Davidson stated there are always exceptions to the rules. Chair Smith stated he did not know if the new approval would have a new number or still carry the approval number of the original approval. He further stated that the approval number would need to be on the approved plat. Ms. Beauchamp
and Ms. Chauvey attempted to determine from previous case files as to whether DOT would assign a new number but were unable to make that determination. Mr. Dingman stated that, in his experience, DOT does not change numbers; they simply approve a change of use. Chair Smith stated that they Board would need a waiver request. Mr. Dingman wrote and submitted a request for waiver. Chair Smith read the request for waiver (see file).
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the request for waiver to Section V.B.2.a. of the Nottingham Subdivision Regulations requiring an approved driveway permit and to allow signing of the mylar which will be held until the approval number has been retained from DOT. Mr. Canney seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Mills, Mr. Bock, Mr. Davidson, and Mr. Canney voted in favor of the motion. Chair Smith voted against the motion. Motion passed 5-1.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the subdivision application of Grace LaPointe for a 2-lot subdivision at 131 Raymond Road, Map 63 Lot 80-1, Case #P07-11-SUB. Mr. Canney Seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Mills, Mr. Bock, Mr. Davidson, and Mr. Canney voted in favor of the motion. Chair Smith voted against the motion. Motion passed 5-1.
All members of the Planning Board, with the exception of Chair Smith, signed the plats. Ms. Chauvey stated that she would need $95 for recording, remapping, and administrative fees. Mr. Dingman stated that Ms. LaPointe would bring in the payment when the DOT approval arrived.
PUBLIC MEETING – DESIGN REVIEW OF A SUBDIVISION – MARY & TERRY BONSER FOR CEDAR WATERS VILLAGE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP - 320 ACRE PARCEL WHICH FRONTS BOTH SMOKE STREET AND McCRILLIS ROAD – MAP 23 LOT 2 – CASE #P07-17-SUBDR.
PUBLIC MEETING – DESIGN REVIEW OF A MULTI-FAMILY AND CONDOMINIUM SITE PLAN – MARY & TERRY BONSER FOR CEDAR WATERS VILLAGE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP – PROPOSED 79.92 ACRE PARCEL WHICH FRONTS McCRILLIS ROAD – PROPOSED PARCEL IS CURRENTLY PART OF TAX MAP 23 LOT 2 – CASE #P07-18-SITDR.
Chair Smith opened the public meetings at 8:15 PM.
Mr. Landry spoke in representation of the Bonsers. He stated that the Bonsers are here to introduce to the Planning Board and abutters a plan for their property. He stated that they have had some confusion in trying to following the zoning regulations for multi-family development regarding density, frontage, and certain minimum requirements. He stated that the regulations talk about a six acre minimum requirement to approach this type of development. He indicated that they are showing approximately 73 acres of land for the potential lot. He stated that the regulations also talk about a 60,000 contiguous upland per unit requirement. Referring to the development on the left side of the plat, Mr. Landry noted that they had defined the contiguous upland, which in this case comes to about 7.4 acres, or 321,000
contiguous square feet; and when divided out comes to about 5 units. Referring to the proposed development on the right side of the plat, Mr. Landry stated that they configured it in the same manner coming out with over two million in contiguous square footage, or approximately 50 acres of upland, which divided out comes to approximately 36/37 units. He stated that they applicant is looking at a total development of approximately 42 units. Mr. Landry then stated that elsewhere in the regulations it talks about two acres per unit, which would require 84 acres for a 42 unit development. He stated that part of the reason the applicants are here is to iron out these differences.
Mr. Landry stated that unlike single family development, this development requires 100’ setback off of McCrillis Road. He stated that the regulations also talk about a buffer zone separate from the setbacks. He informed the board that the buffer zone in this case is restricted to no dwellings, septics, wells, or service roads and surrounds the entire parcel. In regards to roadways, Mr. Landry stated that the regulations talk about streets being built to town standards and they have engineered them that way; however, this development is going to remain private and be self contained. It is not intended to become a burden to the town. Mr. Landry reported that individual septics will be designed by Mr. Bonser and the idea is that each of the twelve units will have their own leach field. He stated that
they are not sure how they are going to handle wells at this time, but the regulations say they must meet State requirements. He further stated that they may have one well servicing all of the units or they may break it into multiple wells so as not to deal with regulations of community wells. Mr. Landry stated that they have not looked far enough ahead to determine how they would handle the utilities either, acknowledging that public utilities have standards that need to be met and the fire department would have input at the time of application acceptance. Mr. Landry stated they are here to get input and feedback on how they should proceed. He stated that some of the reasons the applicants chose this location is because of the southerly exposure, nicely sloping land, and zero impact to wetlands or natural features.
Ms. Kameris asked Mr. Landry to point out Pea Porridge Brook on the plat. Mr. Landry pointed it out, stating that that is a natural feature that they have stayed clear of. Ms. Kameris stated that that area is very, very wet from Smoke Street down. Ms. Bonser asked Mr. Landry if he was a Certified Wetland Scientist. Mr. Landry stated that he was and that that would be looked at during engineering. Chair Smith informed those present that he would like the Planning Board members to make their comments and ask their questions before the general public speaks.
Mr. Bock, noting that Nottingham does not have developments of this nature, asked what type of structures the applicants are planning to build. Mr. Landry stated he believed the applicants were going to build something similar to Pawtuckaway Estates on Route 156, just prior to the Raymond line. He further stated that the units share common walls, have an upstairs and downstairs type situation with two or three bedrooms, possibly a drive under garage. Chair Smith stated it sounds like a townhouse. Mr. Landry agreed, adding that the applicants have not decided if they are going to shift it to a 55 or older development or if it will be open to all. Mr. Landry stated that, with the exception of the two entrance roads, the general public will not be able to see much of the development, noting that if the parcel was
chopped up into house lots, the public would see the five or six house lots and driveways.
At Ms. Matthews inquiry, Mr. Landry stated that the applicants are looking at a total 42 units depending on the confusion around density. He added that the development on the left side has two structures containing a total of five units and the development on the right has four units per structure. Chair Smith stated that regulations for multi-family require no less than three and no more than 4 units and noted that the development on the left depicts a structure with only two units. He stated he was not sure if duplex regulation requirements were the same as multi-family. Mr. Landry stated he did not know either. Mr. Landry stated that it came out that way based on the math, however, there are other arrangements that could be done.
Chair Smith stated that that the regulations prohibit cul-de-sacs, and although this plan did not depict what the Board typically sees as a cul-de-sac, he had concern that these entryways may fall under that regulation. He informed the applicants that, overall, he likes the design. He believes it is better to keep development limited instead of breaking it all up into two acre lots with roads. Mr. Landry stated that he struggled with the same idea, however had come to the conclusion that that was for town roads. Chair Smith and Ms. Beauchamp stated that the regulation does not call out town roads, it simply says no cul-de-sacs. Mr. Landry stated that that is why they are here, to get Planning Board input. He further stated that if no cul-de-sacs is a subdivision regulation, then when the time comes, they
would write a waiver. He stated that the applicants do not want to spend $100K in engineering fees to be told they can have cul-de-sacs. Chair Smith informed Mr. Landry that the Conservation Commission was meeting with the Planning Board this evening to discuss conservation development. He thought it may be helpful for the applicants to stay.
Mr. Bock stated that the idea of this type of a concept has great appeal. He, also, likes the plan but is interested in what the Conservation Commission thinks of it and believes that impact will need to be looked at.
Mr. Davidson asked if the developments were going to be two separate associations. Mr. Landry stated that it is planned as one development. Mr. Davidson asked if there was going to be a connection between the proposed development on the right side of the lot and the proposed development on the left side of the lot other than going out on to McCrillis Road. Mr. Landry stated there may be trails but nothing for driving on.
Mr. Bock asked Ms. Beauchamp to comment on the plan. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she cannot provide specifics because it is only a design review and she has not been asked to review it. She further stated that one comment she did want to make is that she believes the Board needs to clarify density requirements before the applicants spend any money. Mr. Bock asked her to speak about it. Ms. Beauchamp stated that her understanding of the regulation is 2 acres per unit whether multi-family or duplex. Chair Smith stated he could not find the density requirement in the regulations. Ms. Beauchamp stated that this is a great plan, with community water, community septic, less impervious area, and so forth. Mr. Gylfphe found density requirements on Page 21 in the Nottingham Building Code and Zoning Ordinances;
both require two acres per unit. Chair Smith read the ordinance. Mr. Landry asked if the word “of” should be “or.” Chair Smith informed Mr. Landry that the regulation was correct and was asking for a minimum of 6 acres per structure for a multi-family development of three units, providing two acres per unit. Mr. Landry stated that theyhad the required uplands for all units within the 73 acres and asked if that would satisfy the board. Chair Smith replied that the requirement is in the regulation. Mr. Landry stated that the following sentence is contradictory, requiring 60K contiguous uplands for each dwelling. Chair Smith replied that the comments are not contradictory, and stated that both 2 acres and 60K of contiguous uplands are required for each unit.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Landry if the Conservation Commission had seen the plan. Mr. Landry replied that they have not. Chair Smith asked if any Board Member had any more questions. No one responded.
Mr. Seaverns confirmed with Mr. Bonser that the proposed lot does not front Smoke Street. Mr. Bonser replied that it does not, it has approximately 1,800 feet of frontage on McCrillis Road. Mr. Seaverns stated that it may be in the best interest of the Planning Board to invoke a traffic study of McCrillis Road. Mr. Seaverns asked if there was anything on the plan for community buildings, facilities, or function halls. Mr. Landry stated they have not thought that far ahead, yet. Ms. Matthews asked about lighting. Mr. Landry replied that they have not thought about that, yet, either. Chair Smith stated that all lighting must meet the lighting regulations. Ms. Matthews replied that she was interested to know how much light there would be for 42 units opposed to five, six, or seven houses.
Mr. Landry stated that the applicants are looking to maximize their usage of this land, adding that they have designed a road network on the property that loops around and meets all the regulations to create approximately 38 to 40 lots. Chair Smith stated that the amount of lighting that could potentially be installed in a plan like this may not meet the regulations, and even if it did, would probably have quite a “glow” to it. Mr. Davidson stated that, in his personal experience, there is limited lighting and lighting is needed in a development of this nature for safety purposes. Ms. Kameris asked about tree cutting. Ms. Bonser stated that their plan is to cut as few trees as possible. Mr. Seaverns asked if the entrances were angled so that someone driving by would not be able to see into the development. Mr. Landry stated they had worked with the slope of the land and believes that if someone looked up the entrance way, they
would probably be able to see some of the development. Someone asked what the distance between structures is. Mr. Landry replied that they vary, pointing out 60’, 100’, and 120’.
Ms. Bonser stated that they were also interested in talking about phasing. Mr. Bonser stated that this project would not be put in over night. Mr. Bock asked if the applicants have a preference for which side they want to start with. Mr. Bonser stated that they start in the front and work their way back.
Ms. Beauchamp asked Mr. Landry which unit they would remove based on the density requirements. Mr. Landry stated that they would probably add more land. Ms. Beauchamp asked where they would add the land. Mr. Landry stated that he would probably suggest to the applicants that they move the proposed lot line back to add enough. Chair Smith asked how close to the camps in Cedar Waters the development would come if the lot line was moved back. Mr. Landry stated it was at least 600’. Mr. Bock asked if the applicants intend to delineate the two areas separately. Ms. Bonser stated there are brooks out there. Mr. Landry stated that the intent is for one development.
Mr. Gylfphe suggested they consider garages for the development. Chair Smith stated that garages that are built under the unit may cut down on the number of parking spaces needed, possibly reducing the impervious surfaces. Ms. Bonser asked if covered parking cut down on the number of sites required. Chair Smith stated that the regulations would need to be reviewed for an answer to that. Ms. Bonser asked if they could submit a waiver from current regulations. Chair Smith stated a waiver could not be granted by the Planning Board for something that is in the Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Landry stated that parking could be minimized but there would still be a need for parking areas. Mr. Bock stated that a parking area would be needed for things such as deliveries.
Mr. Davidson asked about rubbish removal. Mr. Landry stated that they haven’t thought about that, yet, acknowledging that that is an issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Davidson stated that condo associations usually have a service. Chair Smith stated he would rather see them use the Recycling Center, noting that recycling generates revenue and dumpsters are unsightly.
Mr. Landry asked if the Planning Board was at a point where they could entertain a waiver for dead-end streets. Ms. Beauchamp and Chair Smith informed Mr. Landry that no motions or approvals could be made at this type of a meeting. Chair Smith further explained that this was a public meeting, not a public hearing, since no application had been received and accepted. Mr. Landry, noting that that Planning Board has waived the cul-de-sac/dead end street regulation in the past, stated that they would most likely design circular access instead of a hammerhead. Chair Smith stated that the reason they had waived it in the past was to avoid unnecessary extra road that would have traveled through natural features which they wanted to preserve. Ms. Bonser stated that this would be the same situation. Ms. Bonser
asked if she could get a census from the members as to how they felt about this issue. Mr. Davidson stated he would rather not. Referring to the case Mr. Landry had brought up, Mr. Seaverns stated that the applicant had come in with plans that depicted the subdivision laid out to meet regulations. Ms. Bonser stated that they also have plans drawn to meet the regulations, although they did not bring them to this meeting. Mr. Seaverns stated that he just wanted to point out that there were several factors that came into play when the Planning Board made the decision to waive the cul-de-sac/dead-end street regulation. Mr. Seaverns further stated that he thought the cul-de-sac/dead-end road regulation was in the Zoning Ordinances and the Planning Board does not have the authority to waive zoning. Mr. Landry stated that the Multi-Family Development Ordinance directs that roads will be constructed according to Subdivision Regulations. Mr.
Seaverns stated that if the Zoning Ordinance requires roads to be built according to the Subdivision Regulations and the Subdivision Regulations say no cul-de-sacs, then that is what must be followed. Mr. Bonser stated that they did not want to impact the environment to the extent of putting in roads that would not be needed in this development. Chair Smith stated that he felt there was a lot of benefit to install cul-de-sacs. Mr. Bonser noted that the dead-end road they have planned is very short. Chair Smith stated that it has been noted for the record that this regulation has been waived in the past and with good reason it could possibly be waived again.
Ms. Matthews asked the Chair to explain the process from this point forward and asked if there was an opportunity for the abutters to come back with questions and comments. Chair Smith informed Ms. Matthews that the plans are available in the Planning Office during regular office hours for anyone who wants to review them. He stated that once the Planning Board receives completed applications for the subdivision and site plan, a meeting will be scheduled. He explained that the meeting begins with application acceptance, during which there is no public comment. Once the application has been accepted, the public hearing is held, during which public questions and comments are taken. Ms. Matthews asked if public questions and comments were taken prior to the Board making their decision. Chair Smith stated that
it was and that once the applications are received, new notice will be sent to the abutters. Chair Smith stated that the Planning Board was looking at a lengthy discussion with the Conservation Commission this evening and he thought the Board should move on to that. Ms. Bonser stated she is not comfortable with the lack of direction she has gotten from the Board on the cul-de-sac issue. She asked if they could get their opinion. Chair Smith stated the opinion is that if the situation is right, then there is a chance that the Board may entertain a waiver for that requirement. Ms. Bonser asked when the Board would be prepared to review the waiver. Chair Smith informed Ms. Bonser that it should be submitted some time after the application has been submitted. Ms. Bonser stated that they will have to go through the engineering process for that to happen and they were hoping to have this resolved before they spent that kind of money. Chair
Smith stated that the Board could not make a vote on something for which they do not have an application. Ms. Kameris stated that she felt that the Conservation Commission should look at the area around Pea Porridge and she did not believe that the Board should rely on the word of only one Wetland Scientist.
Ms. Beauchamp asked if design review for the Bonsers was finished. She informed Chair Smith that the Bonsers would be grandfathered from any zoning changes for a period of one year, stating that that needs to be noted in the record. Mr. Bonser asked if Chair Smith had opened both meetings. Ms. Bonser and Chair Smith replied that he had. Ms. Bonser asked the members of the Board if they felt they had had their say, stating that she did not mind if the Board wanted to recess the case for two weeks to give them time to think it over. Ms. Mills asked Ms. Beauchamp if the could give their opinion. Ms. Beauchamp stated that in design review neither the applicant nor the Planning Board are held to anything. She further stated that these meeting are opportunities for the Planning Board to provide the
applicants with guidance and interpretation of the zoning. She stated that, individually, the members can state what they like and do not like but they could not vote and/or speak as a Board. Ms. Bonser asked, again, if they should return in two weeks. Chair Smith stated he had already given his opinion and reiterated that he likes it and thinks it is a good design. He feels it’s better to see this that have the whole piece chopped up into two acre lots. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he likes the concept of if, however, he sees a lot of things they could work on. Ms. Bonser asked him to speak up. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he thought they should use the parking lot as a turn-around for the road instead of installing a hammerhead, for safety reasons. Mr. Canney stated that he thought the fire department would require the hammerhead. Mr. Gylfphe replied that they would be in the parking lot and the parking lot would be big enough for
them to turn around. Ms. Mills stated it would not be big enough if cars were parked in it. Mr. Seaverns stated that there is still a dead-end road issue that needs to be resolved. Ms. Beauchamp and Chair Smith both stated that they could not find it in the Zoning Ordinances. Chair Smith further stated that, as a Subdivision Regulation, the Board could choose to waive it if they felt there was appropriate reason to do so. Ms. Bonser confirmed with Chair Smith that the waiver should be submitted with the application. Mr. Seaverns suggested that the Board may want the Bonsers submit a “what it would be without the waiver” plan for proof to the Planning Board that granting the waiver is the best way to proceed with this development. Chair Smith stated he thought that was a good suggestion. Ms. Bonser stated that they have those plans and asked if the Board wanted to see them as part of the design review or with the
application. Chair Smith stated that they should be submitted with the waiver request. Mr. Landry stated that the Board is trying to compare apples and oranges. Chair Smith stated that would be the justification for the waiver. Mr. Landry stated that the only way to make this type of a multi-family development work is to cluster them together. Ms. Bonser stated they would bring the alternate plans when they submit their application.
Mr. Gylfphe stated that there is a cluster subdivision such as this in Chester, noting that this type of development was discussed quite a bit at the Law Lecture Series, and the feeling is that it is a good alternative.
Mr. Seaverns stated that another option for the road is to have it loop back on itself so it is not a dead-end.
Ms. Mills made a motion to end the subdivision and site plan design reviews of Mary & Terry Bonser for Cedar Waters Village General Partnership, Tax Map 23 Lot 2, Case #P07-17-SUBDR and Case #P07-18-SITDR. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Discussion nottingham Conservation Commission – Conservation Subdivisions
Ms. Beauchamp presented copies of a map depicting the focus areas of the Conservation Overlay District. She stated that the Conservation Commission was proposing the Overlay District in conjunction with a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance. She informed the Board that ordinance would affect lots 20 acres or greater in size and would require, depending on where the property is located, the developer to place half the acreage into conservation. She noted for the record that the Conservation Commission was proposing different recommendations for different areas, noting that the dark orange areas would be mandatory conservation areas under the ordinance, light orange areas would be optional, and purple, depicting the wildlife corridors, would also be mandatory. Everyone gathered around to view the maps.
Chair Smith asked if the Conservation Commission had done any “leg-work” in speaking to the large land owners in the proposed mandatory areas. Ms. Beauchamp stated she did not believe that had spoken with anyone, adding that this is in the best interest of developers in that they will not be required to build as many roads. Chair Smith asked what the developer would be loosing, noting that people are always wary when new regulations are proposed. Ms. Beauchamp stated they would not be loosing because they would be able to create the same amount of house lots with less roadway. She stated it is a good deal for both the town and the developer. Mr. Davidson stated he thought it was a move in the right direction. He stated that he wanted to be proactive, not restrictive. Chair Smith asked how
this proposal would go out to the people. Ms. Beauchamp informed the Board that their last day to notice a public hearing for changes to zoning was January 11, 2008. Mr. Davidson voiced concern that there was not enough time to educate the public about the proposal. Ms. Beauchamp asked the Conservation Commission if they would be willing to send out a flyer to residents and place a notice on the public access channel and in the newsletter. The stated they would.
Mr. Bock and Ms. Mills left the meeting at 10:05 PM.
Mr. Gylfphe stated that he likes the idea, overall, however does not like that some of it will be mandatory. He stated that it restricts the town. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the Conservation Commission had placed the mandatory requirement on areas in Nottingham that they feel need to be protected. Chair Smith voiced concern over someone coming in to create a one-hundred lot subdivision not being able to break out larger lots. Ms. Beauchamp informed Chair Smith that the proposed ordinance has a minimum of 1-acre lots but does not say they can’t be larger. Ms. Bonser asked why they would want to make it mandatory when if given the option, the developer would choose it anyway. Ms. Beauchamp stated that some developers stand by the “cookie cutter” development. Mr. Gylfphe noted that one
lot up on Revolutionary Lane is 38 acres. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the developer would still be able to do that as long as they put 50% of the buildable land in conservation. Ms. Mooney stated that it should be up to the town how it grows, not the developer. Chair Smith stated that he felt that at least half of the dark orange area was already in conservation. Mr. Gylfphe stated that there are other large lots that are not in the proposed mandatory area, such as between French Road and Ledge Farm Road. Ms. Beauchamp asked if they were 20 acre lots. Mr. Gylfphe responded that they are mostly four and five acre lots. Ms. Beauchamp informed Mr. Gylfphe that those lots would not serve well for this because the most they would get at a time would be two or three acres and no land trust would take a conservation easement that small.
Chair Smith stated that this would be put on the agenda for the January 2, 2008 meeting. Ms. Beauchamp asked the Members to review the proposed ordinance and come with suggestions to the next meeting. Chair Smith stated that he felt that if they could put together a good enough ordinance then they could drop the mandatory piece. Ms. Chauvey stated that she did not believe all developers would choose to build cluster developments if they were not made mandatory. She acknowledged that clusters work for many people, however, she would not choose to live in a cluster development, nor would she choose to build one if she had land to develop. She further stated that she likes her space and would choose to create a development for others who like their space, if given the choice. Ms. Beauchamp
Mr. Davidson made a motion to adourn the meeting. Mr. Canney seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
