NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
WORKSHOP
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Skip Seaverns Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Mark Harding Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Mary Bonser
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 7, 2007:
Ms. Beauchamp stated that the two driveways she spoke of with Mr. Garland are the approved driveways for Map 16 Lot 37 and proposed Lot 37-1. She also clarified that Mr. Garland stated the proposed intersection of Routes 4 and 152 had been shelved.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 7, 2007 meeting with the above clarifications. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mail was distributed.
Ms. Chauvey informed the Board that Mr. Longuiel had called and asked to be placed on the agenda for April 4, 2007.
Ms. Bonser informed the Board that she had received a call from Mr. Win True. He had come before the Planning Board in 2005 with a two-lot subdivision application (Map 58 Lot 6-2). The subdivision was approved with a note on the plat stating that new construction on the new lot must have sprinklers installed. Ms. Bonser stated that the Planning Board had told him that if a stand pipe got installed into Mr. Evans pond (Map 58 Lot 6-A), Mr. True would not have to put sprinklers in the lot associated with the subdivision. Ms. Bonser stated that before Cliff Evans passed away, he got the standpipe into the water. She felt that Mr. True was going to come before the Board to have the note removed.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
Ms. Beauchamp asked the Board if they had decided how they wanted to schedule meetings going forward noting that they had discussed holding completeness meeting for the first Wednesday of the month and compliance for the third. Mr. Gylfphe stated he felt that both meeting should be set at the start and noticed together to reduce postage for two meetings. Ms. Chauvey stated she thought it was premature to set approval dates when you look at cases such as P06-09-SUB. Mr. Seaverns stated it could be done such that the applications deadline is once a month, the completeness review is handled at the meeting held on the first Wednesday of the month, with the compliance and approval taking place on the third Wednesday of the month. He felt the notices could be written to say that the public meeting is taking place on
<first Wednesday> and if the application is accepted as complete there will be a public hearing held on <third Wednesday>. Mr. Seaverns noted for the record that the completeness meeting is a meeting not a hearing, there probably should not be any presentation, and it should not take more than 15 minutes. Mr. Seaverns stated that in many cases the Planning Board would require feedback from other departments and this process would allow two weeks. He also noted that any recommendations received from other departments should be addressed to the Planning Board. Ms. Beauchamp stated she could add, “…to the Planning Board,” at the end of Section IIIC3(i). The Board concurred.
Ms. Bonser inquired as to whether or not the Planning Board has the authority to require sprinklers in homes, if it is not mandated by the State. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the way the proposed regulation is written, they could. Mr. Seaverns noted that the Subdivision Regulations require a cistern for all subdivisions or some alternative fire protection for those minor and major subdivisions without internal roads. He stated the alternate fire protection is the key. The Fire Department will always want sprinklers because it is life safety. Mr. Seaverns noted that that is not the concern of the Board. The concern is fire protection of the town. He stated that a cistern is fire protection for the town. Ms. Bonser stated she is concerned that people with four acres will not be able to subdivide off
two acres for family because of the increased cost if they are required to put in sprinklers or a cistern. Mr. Seaverns suggested the way to address this may be to get easements for the Town to have places to install cisterns when the time comes that they are needed. Ms. Beauchamp reported that the information she has passed on to the Fire Department for their regulations only involves 4 or 5 lot subdivisions. Chair Smith stated that the State is working towards requiring sprinkler systems in all new habitable structures. Ms. Bonser stated that she is in favor of Mr. Seaverns recommendation to have developers donate space for cisterns. Mr. Seaverns stated that he believes the Fire Department is not prepared to have the public believe they will be installing cisterns all around town over the next two years. Mr. Gylfphe indicated that he did not believe the Fire Department would be able to put out a forest fire with the 30,000 gallons of water,
which lasts approximately 12 minutes, that a cistern can hold. Mr. Seaverns stated 12 minutes is better than no minutes.
Mr. Seaverns stated again that he believes the meetings should be scheduled for completeness on the first Wednesday of the month and compliance and final approval on the third Wednesday of the month. He stated that lot line adjustment notices should say, “…if time permits, the public comment may be taken at this meeting …” . He feels all should read “the completeness review is only a public meeting and the public is encouraged to attend, however,…” Ms. Chauvey asked for clarification on the subdivision notices, specifically what if the application is not accepted at the first meeting. Mr. Seaverns stated that if the application it is not accepted, then the Board has to deny it. Ms. Beauchamp clarified that the notice will say, “If the application is accepted a
compliance review and final approval hearing will be held on…” She stated it would be up to the interested parties to find out if it has been accepted.
Ms. Beauchamp asked if the Board intended to go two weeks or 30 days. Ms. Bonser stated she felt the Board should attempt two weeks to see how it goes. Mr. Seaverns noted it may be difficult for the applicant to get changes to plans or to receive feedback from other departments in two weeks time. Ms. Bonser stated that if someone is serious and has their act together they will get through. The Board concurred. Chair Smith stated he saw no reason why compliance could not be heard on the same night as completeness as long as it is not for the same case. Mr. Seaverns stated that he felt they should have a standard of two weeks and work it from there. Ms. Beauchamp stated she felt the Board should start with this schedule and adjust it as needed. Mr. Seaverns noted that this schedule leads to a 4 – 6 week approval time. Ms. Beauchamp stated she felt that was reasonable. Mr. Seaverns suggested that if the application is not accepted as complete, the case could be postponed for
one week, being the off week for a meeting, giving the applicant a second chance to be accepted, prior to the scheduled compliance hearing date. Ms. Chauvey inquired as to how cases the need to go before zoning will be handled. Mr. Seaverns stated that they would be denied with a motion to waive fees if the applicant re-applies within a year.
Ms. Beauchamp inquired as to whether the time slots assigned to cases were working for the Board. Mr. Seaverns stated it had been started to allow the people appearing for cases to come later in the evening, if the case was not scheduled first. Ms. Bonser stated she feels people mock the Board because the times assigned essentially mean nothing.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to notice meetings and hearings as beginning at 7:15 PM, to remove the time slots assigned to items on the agenda, and to replace those times with numbers which represent the order in which each item will be heard. She further motioned that approval of minutes be placed at the top of the agenda without a time slot, allowing the Board to move that item to the end of the meeting, if needed. Chair Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Seaverns, and Mr. Harding voted in favor. Chair Smith voted against. Motion passed 4-1.
Ms. Beauchamp noted that she was suggesting the removal of Section III A.7 and asked the members to review Section III B for changes made at the last workshop. Mr. Seaverns stated he would like her to change to the word ‘proposed’ to ‘preliminary’ in the changed section. Ms. Beachamp suggested changing the set up of Section III B and giving it a subsection 1 for major subdivisions and a subsection 2 for applications that impact wetlands. The Board concurred. Mr. Seaverns confirmed with Ms. Beauchamp that all documents will say plat when complete.
Ms. Beauchamp noted that she had added the word ‘secretary’ to the third paragraph on Page 6. Board Members requested her to change it to the Planning Department.
Ms. Beauchamp distributed a handout regarding regional abutters/impact. She explained that they could incorporate some guidelines into the Subdivision Regulations so that if an application meets any of the criteria, the project would automatically have some kind of regional notification. The Board will discuss this further.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Smith set a workshop for March 14, 2007.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
