NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 2007
PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING
Approved 09/05/07
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Gail Mills, Secretary
Mr. Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Rep. (left at 9:00 PM)
Mr. Bob Davidson
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Lucille Howard, Applicant Mr. Richard Ladd, RSL Layout & Design
Mr. Raymond Howard Mr. Bernard Adams, Applicant
Mr. Stephen White Mr. Roscoe Blaisdell, Surveyor
Ms. Grace LaPointe Mr. Skip Seaverns, Nottingham Resident
Mr. Reed Murphy, Abutter Mr. Jaye Vilchock, Chief, Nottingham Fire Department
Mr. Sam Demeritt, Nottingham Conservation Commission Mr. Tom Sweeney, Abutter
Mr. Gerald Giles, Attorney for Applicant Ms. Cheryl Smith, Nottingham Conservation Commission
Mr. Brian Connors, Abutter Ms. Annette Loubier, Abutter
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Secretary to the Planning Board
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM. He asked Mr. Curry to sit in for Ms. Mills.
MINUTES
Chair Smith opened discussion of the minutes at 7:09 PM
Minutes of July 11, 2007:
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the minutes of the July 11, 2007 meeting as written. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. Mr. Curry abstained. All others voted in favor. Motion passed 4-0-1.
Minutes of July 18, 2007:
Mr. Curry asked Ms. Chauvey to amend the minutes of the July 18 meeting to reflect that he had obtained legal advice from the Local Government Center (Attorney Sanderson), due to a conversation at an earlier meeting, regarding the reformatting of the Zoning Ordinances and had been advised by LGC that reformatting is a technicality and does not require town vote. He stated that it was also suggested to him that a numbering system which allows for future changes be used.
Mr. Bock followed up to issues addressed in the July 18 minutes. Firstly, he informed the members of the Planning Board that he had spoken with Charles Brown, Town Administrator, and was told that the Planning Board Clerk is allowed to contact LGC at anytime. Secondly, he informed the members that he had obtained legal advice from LGC and was informed that the Planning Board was allowed to invite the Recording Secretary to non-public session to take minutes. Lastly, in reference to the disagreement between Mr. Davidson and Ms. Chauvey on this evening, he felt the minutes reflected portions of the disagreement; however, he noted that he felt it was hard for the recording secretary to objectify because she had been involved. He commented for the record that he believes it is clear what the responsibilities are for both
the recording secretary and the elected official and although the minutes reflect some of it, he believes it is still “slightly hairy.” Mr. Davidson stated that from his point, things are ok and it is a non-issue. Ms. Chauvey thanked Mr. Davidson and agreed with his comments. Mr. Bock added that he felt the minutes of
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 18, 2007 meeting, with the above noted amendment. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Minutes of August 1, 2007:
Mr. Bock felt the minutes of this meeting should reflect that the reason he was not prepared to vote on the minutes was because he believed it was important for all who were present for the “umbrage and imbroglio” to review the minutes. He also followed up on the comments between Mr. Seaverns and himself regarding the pulling of the Building Inspectors files, stating that he had confirmed that there would be no privacy issues with this process for current files but that they were not sure what would be in an older file created prior to the current Building Inspector’s acceptance of the position.
Chair Smith noted a typo in the first paragraph of Page 1; ‘gong’ should be ‘going’.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approved the minutes of the August 1, 2007 meeting, with the above noted amendments. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. Mr. Curry abstained. All other voted in favor. Motion passed 4-0-1.
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 7:25 PM
Mr. Blaisdell spoke in representation of Mr. Adams. He reported that they had received the driveway permit from the State. He confirmed with Ms. Chauvey that the Planning Board had received a copy for their files.
Mr. Adams paid outstanding fees of $466.25.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the application of Bernard Adams for a 2-lot subdivision at 228 Stage Road, Map 29 Lot 5, Case #P07-07-SUB. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Smith called for public comment. There was no response.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to approve the application of Bernard Adams for a 2-lot subdivision at 228 Stage Road, Map 29 Lot 5, Case #P07-07-SUB. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mylar and plat copies were signed. The applicant and representative left the meeting.
CISTERN DISCUSSION:
Chair Smith opened the discussion at 7:33 PM.
Chief Vilchock, Nottingham Fire and Rescue addressed the board stating that the fire department could not 100% certify that 15,000 gallon cistern installed on Deerfield Road, Map 52 Lot 6, had been correctly installed as they were not informed of the installation (as required by the approval of the Planning Board) until the cistern was already in place. The cistern is part of the approved plan of Lake Realty Trust, John Jalbert. He wanted the Planning Board to be aware that there is future risk involved with the installation due to the lack of confidence in compaction during installation. He added that the Planning Board would receive a formal letter from the Nottingham Fire and Rescue Department. He asked if it was within the Board’s capability to have an engineering study done to certify that compaction is
satisfactory. Chair Smith asked if it had been back-filled at this time. Chief Vilchock responded that his indication was that at this point it had been back-filled. Mr. Curry inquired as to how it could be inspected at this point. Chief Vilchock responded that he was not sure because he is not that type of an engineer.
Chair Smith stated that the Board needed to know how well the soil under the cistern was compacted. Mr. Seaverns suggested the Board contact the Town Engineer to see what he could do in this situation. Mr. Curry stated that it was a condition of approval that the cistern be installed according to the proper procedure. He felt a letter could be sent to the Town’s Engineer asking what, if anything, he could do and at what cost. Then, he felt, a letter could be sent to the developer stating that the fire department has concerns and what the cost to the developer would be for the Town’s Engineer to come and inspect the cistern. Mr. Curry asked Ms. Chauvey to prepare the two letters. Chief Vilchock recommended that the Board hold their letter until receipt of the letter from the fire department.
At an inquiry from Chair Smith, Chief Vilchock explained that the proper procedure for cistern install is for someone from the fire department to be on site during certain steps of the install. At Chair Smith’s further inquiry, Chief Vilchock stated he did not know how long the Checklist form had been in place.
PUBLIC MEETING – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 6 lot subdivision) – RSL LAYOUT & DESIGN FOR LITTLE RIVER REALTY TRUST, LUCILLE HOWARD, TRUSTEE – 375 STAGE ROAD – MAP 17 LOT 25 – CASE #P07-08-SUB:
Chair Smith opened the public meeting at 7:45 PM.
Mr. Ladd spoke in representation of the applicant, noting that this application was a combined application with Case #P07-09-SUB due to the necessity of the connecting road which would create an in and out for both subdivisions. He stated the applicants are aware that approvals of the applications are contingent upon each other.
Chair Smith stated that the applications would be handled at the same time. Mr. Bock asked if the Giles application was only to provide access to this application. Mr. Ladd informed him that the Giles application was for a 23-lot subdivision. Mr. Bock asked Ms. Beauchamp if she had concerns with the applications. Ms. Beauchamp replied that her concern was if one was approved and one was not. Chair Smith stated this was not an issue; they would be contingent upon each other. She stated she had informed Mr. Ladd that he had the option to submit them as one application. Mr. Ladd declined since the properties have two separate owners.
Chair Smith opened the meeting on Case P07-09-SUB at this time. Minutes continue below the next heading.
PUBLIC MEETING – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 23 lot subdivision) – RSL LAYOUT & DESIGN FOR LEONARD GILES REVOCABLE TRUST OF 2000 – NORTH SIDE OF GEBIG ROAD – MAP 17 LOT 31 – CASE #P07-09-SUB:
Chair Smith opened the public meeting at 7:50 PM. See minutes from case #P07-08-SUB.
Mr. Bock confirmed that there was no question in anyone’s mind that the applications can not be separated. Mr. Curry stated that the acceptance and approval must state that the applications are contingent upon each other. Mr. Curry then inquired about the reasoning behind the ‘no cul-de-sac’ ordinance. Mr. Gylfphe responded that it was mainly a safety issue concerning how to get to residents at the end of the cul-de-sac if a disaster should happen at the opening.
Strafford Regional’s Completeness Review For Little River Realty Trust 6-Lot Subdivision:
Ms. Beauchamp asked for clarification of the NH DOT driveway application. Chair Smith informed her that, at this time, the Planning Board would be looking for a permit for the road; then, after acceptance and before approval the Board would be looking for permit applications for the individual driveways. Mr. Curry asked if the road would need to be built, bonded and approved prior to the driveway applications. Mr. Gylfphe responded the road would simply need to have a bond in place. Chair Smith noted that the DOT permit stated eight. Mr. Ladd replied that the State had asked him to report total usage and that is why he had completed the application for a total of eight. Chair Smith stated he wanted to research how this had been handled in the past, noting that the individual lot permits would need to be
applied for from the Town for completeness.
Mr. Ladd reported that there is a field. Mr. Curry asked Ms. Beauchamp to clarify her concern regarding the vegetation lines. Ms. Beauchamp replied that Nottingham Subdivision Regulation Section V A.5 requires wooded areas to be shown.
Mr. Ladd reported that he did have a Wetland Scientist involved in the survey, noting there are no very poorly drained soils. He informed Ms. Beauchamp that the Wetland Scientist will stamp the final plat.
Mr. Ladd stated he would add area in square footage.
Mr. Ladd stated that the proposed road has a wide egress so that cars will enter it at a 90º angle, noting it has been planned this way due to grading.
Mr. Ladd stated that he has applied for State subdivision approval. He will supply a copy to the Board.
Mr. Ladd stated he would supply a waiver for the Howard’s existing well and will move all others. He will also add building setback lines to the legend.
At Chair Smith’s inquiry, Ms. Smith reported that the Nottingham Conservation Commission had not seen this plan.
In regards to addition comment bullet #5, Chair Smith noted for the record that the applications will be contingent upon each other and recorded at the same time.
Mr. Ladd reported that both abandoned wells have been filled and sealed.
Ms. Beauchamp noted that the 1998 plan for Lot 23 shows Lot 20 as having road frontage to the south of Lot 24. She also noted that she thought this plan may more accurately depict the location of Mountain Brook. Mr. Ladd stated he would research this information.
Outstanding Issues: well radiuses / wooded areas on plat / buildable area / area in square footage / State subdivision application / complete legend / research of plan from 1998.
Mr. Curry made a motion to not accept the application because of outstanding issues. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Ladd stated he had not applied for State Subdivision approval on the Giles application at this time. He was hoping the board would send the plans out for technical review so that the applicant could make possible necessary changes prior to the submission. Mr. Curry stated that the applications can not go out for technical review until they have been accepted. At Chair Smith’s inquiry, Mr. Ladd explained that one reason for waiting to submit the application to the State is the cost; the State application is $150 per lot. He added that if the Planning Board’s technical review required changes a new application would need to be filed with the State. Ms. Beauchamp, reading from the Nottingham Subdivision Rules and Regulations informed the Board that State Subdivision application is required for
application completeness. Mr. Ladd informed the Board that other towns require that State Subdivision approval be in place for final approval by the Planning Board, not prior. He noted that State Subdivision approval is processed in 30 days. He felt that because there are two other State applications (dredge & fill and site specific) required for this plan that will take a minimum of three months to process, it provided the applicant with enough time to apply for State Subdivision approval after technical review and prior to final approval. Mr. Ladd also noted that the regulations require a mylar for application completeness, which is an undue burden until the applicant was ready for final approval. Ms. Beauchamp agreed. Mr. Curry stated that the rules are the rules; however, he felt the Board would be willing to grant a waiver for filing of the State Subdivision application for completeness, with the understanding that it must be applied for
prior to final approval. Mr. Bock asked if granting this waiver would help this process. Mr. Curry stated it would. Mr. Ladd stated he would bring a waiver to the next meeting. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board should either accept the application with conditions or deny the application.
Chair Smith explained to the abutters present for this application (Little River Realty Trust) that the Board was going to move on to the Completeness Review for the next application (Giles) but leave this hearing open because of the possible need to discuss them in conjunction with each other. He informed them that the meeting for completeness on the Little River Realty Trust application would most likely be recessed to September 5, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Chair Smith called a short break. Mr. Bock left the meeting at this time. Meeting resumed at 9:05 PM.
Strafford Regional’s Completeness Review For Leonard Giles Revocable Trust of 2000 (23-Lot Subdivision):
Mr. Ladd spoke in representation of Mr. Giles stating the lot is approximately 63 acres and the plan is a 23-lot subdivision. The plat depicts one road that connects to the Howard property and one that loops. The plan is to build in four phases. Phase one - connecting road. Phase two - 12 lots created on the connecting road. Phase three - the loop road and creation of six lots. Phase 4 - the remaining 5 lots. Mr. Ladd reported that he had met twice with the Conservation Commission and had added a wildlife corridor at their request. He noted that the corridor is not all wetland and pointed out the uplands. At Mr. Curry’s request, Mr. Ladd stated he would get the acreage of the conservation land for the next meeting. Mr. Ladd also added that the Conservation Commission had not
seen the piece that was added from the Little River Realty Trust property. Ms. Smith from the Conservation Commission stated that this corridor is a fairly critical pathway connecting conservation lands. Mr. Gylfphe inquired about access to an abutting piece of property owned by the town. Mr. Ladd replied that he had not planned an access because it would create a dead-end which is not allowed. Mr. Gylfphe asked if the Conservation Commission was willing to take this property over. Chair Smith felt this discussion should take place during compliance review. Mr. Gylfphe stated that this creates a land-locked piece of land. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the land is already land-locked, not created by this subdivision. Mr. Ladd stated the applicant would be willing to create an access if that is what the town wanted to happen.
Mr. Ladd reported that he will apply for the two driveway permits on Gebig Road prior to the next meeting. The other driveway applications will be required after acceptance.
In reference to Section IV F, Mr. Ladd stated that when the septic is placed it can be placed to within 10’ of the property line. Chair Smith informed Mr. Ladd that Nottingham’s Subdivision Regulations are stricter at 50’. Mr. Ladd acknowledged that that is a requirement in the subdivision regulations, but noted that when the building permit is pulled, the septic is allowed to within 10’ of the property line. Chair Smith informed Mr. Ladd that according to RSA, the Building Inspector is required to follow the subdivision regulations. Mr. Curry stated that the Building Inspector is supposed to follow the stricter regulations whether they be State or Town regulations. Mr. Ladd stated that the regulations make it impossible to build. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it does not make it
impossible to build but it does make it more difficult to subdivide. Chair Smith stated that a waiver, with justification, would need to be submitted for any lots that do not follow this requirement.
Mr. Ladd will add a note to plat stating lot is wooded.
Mr. Ladd reported that two test pits had been done for proposed Lot 31-2 and Lot 31-3 and he would add them to the plat.
Mr. Ladd reported that there are no poorly drained soils or very poorly drained soils and that the Wetland Scientist would stamp the final plat.
Mr. Ladd stated he would add the buildable area in square feet to the plat.
Mr. Ladd reported that he has not applied for State subdivision on this application because he is waiting to see if the Planning Board is going to require any changes, noting that dredge and fill has been applied for and there is at least a 90-day wait.
Mr. Ladd reported that he will provide the correct right-of-way for Lot 31 if it does not already exist.
Mr. Ladd stated that he will provide a complete legend on the plat.
Mr. Ladd reported that currently there is not a utility easement but they would be providing one for the underground utilities if the subdivision was approved.
At Ms. Beauchamp’s inquiry, Mr. Ladd explained that there is an old foundation and a cemetery on the property, noting that there is a 25’ easement around the cemetery.
Chair Smith informed Mr. Ladd that the Board would require an easement for any well radius that went over the property lines. Mr. Ladd responded that no well radius would go more than 10’ over the property line. Chair Smith stated that the person buying the property on which the well radius crossed would need to give up use of that little piece of land to protect the well radius of the abutting land. Mr. Ladd felt this was unnecessary since a septic cannot be placed any closer than 10’ to the property boundary. Mr. Curry stated he understood, however, that’s how the regulations are currently written. Several people gave examples of well radius protection issues such as no horse pastures, no dumping or burying of chemicals, no manure piles.
Mr. Ladd stated that the abandoned wells would be sealed. Chair Smith asked if the wells were dug or drilled, as they require different method of sealing. Mr. Ladd felt they were dug but would check.
Mr. Curry made a motion to recess the 6-lot subdivision application from RSL Layout & Design for Little River Realty Trust, Lucille Howard, Trustee, 375 Stage Road, Map 17 Lot 25, Case #P07-08-SUB and the 23-lot subdivision application from RSL Layout & Design for Leonard Giles Revocable Trust of 2000, Gebig Road, Map 17 Lot 31, Case #P07-09-SUB, until September 5, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
BARDERRY LANE SUBDIVISION: Ms. Chauvey reminded the Board that Ms. LaPointe and Mr. White had come in for a preliminary hearing for a subdivision on Barderry Lane and had been directed to the Selectmen. The Selectmen directed them to obtain a denial for a building permit from the Building Inspector and then submit an application to the ZBA. She informed the Planning Board that upon submission of the Zoning Board application, Chair Leib, Nottingham ZBA, had not felt confident that this case should appear before the ZBA prior to the appearing before the Planning Board and had directed her to seek assistance from the Planning Board. She asked the Planning Board to provide direction to Ms. LaPointe and Mr. White as to how to proceed. Chair Smith explained to the other members that the Selectmen’s policy
pertains to the issuance of building permits on private roads and requires approval of the ZBA, however Ms. LaPointe and Mr. White do not currently have a lot to build upon. He added that, by regulation, the Planning Board cannot create an unbuildable lot, which this would be if the ZBA does not approve a building permit. Mr. Seaverns suggested the applicant first apply to the Planning Board for the subdivision, noting that the Planning Board should deny and send them to the ZBA for approval of creating the ‘unbuildable’ lot. If approved by the ZBA, the applicant would then return to the Planning Board for approval of the subdivision. Once approved, the applicant would apply for the building permit. Upon denial of the building permit, the applicant would once again appear before the ZBA, this time for the building permit. Mr. Curry agreed. Mr. Gylfphe stated he had some information for Mr. White that he wished to have cleared
up. He stated that when Ms. LaPointe’s lot had been subdivided, the developer had made a mistake and somehow used a lot line that had been erased in a previous subdivision. Mr. White stated he did not think the land had been subdivide prior to the subdivision for Ms. LaPointe’s lot. Mr. Gylfphe replied that it had been and the records were in the Planning office. Mr. White stated he had no information regarding the erased lot line. Mr. Gylfphe stated that Ms. LaPointe’s lot was not properly created because of this. Mr. Seaverns stated that he believed the minutes of those meeting would reflect that that line was never erased. Mr. Gylfphe replied that the note of the line being erased was recorded on the plat. Mr. Seaverns acknowledge that it may have been recorded with the note, but the line was never meant to be erased, adding that the property was all owned by the same people. Mr. Gylfphe stated that the lot
line used in the lot line adjustment application to create this lot was not an existing lot line. Mr. Curry stated that if the Planning Board approved the lot line adjustment, then so be it, it was their wrong doing, not a wrong doing of the applicant.
GERRIOR LANE TRUST – THE HOMESTEAD DEVELOPMENT: Ms. Chauvey reported that she had had no response from Gerrior Lane Trust regarding the letter she had sent requesting someone’s appearance at tonight’s meeting to update the Board on the status of the Homestead Development and their intent to renew the bond which expires September 15, 2007. Mr. Gylfphe stated a letter should be sent to the bank. Mr. Curry concurred. Ms. Chauvey stated she believed the Board would need to have Attorney Teague involved in the process. She informed them that she had prepared a letter last year for Ms. Bonser signature which was faxed to TD Banknorth. In response, Mr. Tremblay, Vice President at TD Banknorth had advised Charles Brown, Town Administrator, to seek legal assistance in the calling of the
bond. Ms. Chauvey was confident that certain legal documents were required in the pulling of the bond and that the letter that had been written at the 11th hour last year was not adequate. Mr. Seaverns stated that he believed Barrington had correctly submitted the letter for the pulling of the bond last year and suggested that Ms. Chauvey use their letter as a template. Ms. Chauvey stated that she felt that was incorrect and strongly believed Attorney Teague needed to do the proper documentation. Mr. Seaverns stated she should type the letter and send to Attorney Teague for review. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Ms. Chauvey could get the names of the people who needed to be copied from last year’s letter. Chair Smith stated that Barrington should be copied on the letter, also. Mr. Curry suggested that Ms. Chauvey type up the letter and send it off to Attorney Teague, noting that this could save the Town some fees.
USA Springs: Mr. Curry informed the Board that he felt they had a responsibility now that work is being done at the USA Springs site to do some kind of reviews at appropriate times to make sure that the Building Inspector and the applicant are complying with the letter and the intent of the approval of the Planning Board. He added that he did not feel this needed to be a formal process and clarified that he was not speaking about enforcement. He felt a meeting between the applicant, building inspector and the board would be adequate. Mr. Seaverns stated that he felt that needed to come from the Selectmen, adding that the Planning Board has nothing to do with that project at this point in time. Ms. Beauchamp stated that that type of follow up is done by a code enforcement officer. Mr. Curry felt the
Planning Board should have some recourse for follow up on conditions they make when approving applications. Mr. Seaverns stated that all conditions should be on the plat for the Building Inspector’s review. Ms. Chauvey stated that a problem arises when the property changes hands over time and the present owners come in with a deed which states something along the lines of subject to conditions, covenants, and restrictions of original subdivision, noting that it appears that no one is responsible for going back to the original plat to see what the Planning Board had intended. Mr. Seaverns stated he felt that was why there should be only one filing system for all files. She stated that she does not understand the purpose for the Planning Board laboring over conditions. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Curry and Mr. Seaverns indicated that something is done when someone complains. Ms. Chauvey indicated that she did not feel this was proactive planning but
felt it provided the opportunity for Nottingham to become one big mistake. Mr. Seaverns stated it is not the Building Inspector’s job to research the history. Ms. Chauvey stated she was not insinuating that it was the Building Inspector’s responsibility; however she felt it should be someone’s responsibility. Mr. Curry stated he felt it was crazy for the Planning Board to sign the papers and not follow up. Mr. Gylfphe stated that that is all the RSA charge the Planning Board with, noting again that enforcement falls under the Board of Selectmen. Chair Smith stated that he felt someone should be looking at the conditions the Planning Board places on approved applications. Mr. Curry conceded that there would be no follow up on the conditions placed by the Planning Board in regards to the USA Springs case by the Planning Board.
WORKSHOP: Chair Smith asked if anyone wanted to plan a workshop for next week. Members concurred that this was not a good month for planning extra meeting.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
