 |
NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
WORKSHOP
Approved 10/10/07
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair
Ms. Gail Mills, Secretary
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Rep. alternate
Mr. Bob Davidson
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Terry Bonser
Ms. Judy Doughty
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Secretary to the Planning Board
Chair Smith called the workshop to order at 7:10 PM.
At Chair Smith’s inquiry, Ms. Chauvey reported that the Town had received that bond checks for Gerrior Lane Trust earlier that day. She also reported that she had received a call from Mr. Peter Daigle, Gerrior Lane Trust Trustee, who had informed her that he in the process of renewing the Letters of Credit with the hope that the Town would accept the new Letters and refund the money. Ms. Chauvey informed the board that she had passed this information on to Marge Carlson, Nottingham’s Bookkeeper, who felt that it was acceptable for the Town to retain the money as the bond, noting the time spent and legalities of calling the Letters of Credit. Ms. Chauvey noted for the record that this is the second year that the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen had invested time in the calling of bonds for this particular
applicant. Chair Smith asked if the developer would come to the Town to release money. Ms. Chauvey confirmed that the bond reduction worksheet would need to be completed, just as it had in the past, and the recommendation from RCCD would still be required but that, yes, the developer would come to the Town for the reductions. Ms. Chauvey stated that she felt the Town should simply sit on the money for the moment to see if the developer comes through with other bonds.
Chair Smith asked Ms. Chauvey if she had any new information to provide on the fire cistern installed on Deerfield Road. Ms. Chauvey reported that she had not had time to follow up on that, yet, adding that she would have answers for him next week.
SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS WORKSHOP:
Ms. Mills stated she was concerned with last Wednesdays meeting, noting that the board had agreed to follow the rules and regulations prior to her taking administrative leave. She stated that her basis for concern is being open to law suits. Chair Smith stated that he agrees that they should be following the rules and regulations, however, he felt that to start at that particular time with that particular application was a bad idea. Ms. Mills stated that people need to be treated consistently. Chair Smith again noted that some of the regulations are confusing. Mr. Davidson informed Mr. Gylfphe that after he left last week, there was a situation where the subdivision and zoning regulations conflicted and the board made a vote on which way to handle it. Chair Smith stated that Ms. Mills’ concern was
over a vote they had taken on the 200’X200’ square feet. Ms. Mills stated that she thought the board had voted to stop waffling and follow the Nottingham Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Davidson agreed, adding that he felt it was a judgment call and the majority made the decision. Chair Smith noted that the Planning Board has been handling this particular regulation as they had done last week before he became a board member. Ms. Mills stated she was aware of that but thought they had voted and agreed to follow the regulations, noting that they did not do this. Chair Smith stated he agreed they should be following the regulations, but noted that the vote that was taken addressed to a particular issue, not the 200’X200’ area. He felt if they were going to change the way that they have been handling the ordinance that was addressed last week, there should be a vote taken and an announcement made. Ms. Chauvey stated she
felt that the board needed to review the definition of Buildable Area before making any formal votes on changing this process as she was not sure that the Boards interpretation was the same as Ms. Beauchamp’s. She noted that there were options on the table to throw out the term and definition and replace it with something other. She indicated that she felt the board needed to make a decision as to where they were going with this issue and if they decided to leave it, she felt that they needed to review their interpretation of the definition of Buildable Area. At Chair Smith’s inquiry, Ms. Chauvey informed the board that the definitions are the same in both the Zoning Ordinances and the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Beauchamp stated that her interpretation of the way it is written is that the 200’X200’ area must not include the building setback. Mr. Seaverns stated that the wording is unclear. Chair Smith stated that the
Board’s interpretation has always been that the 200'X200' area can include the setbacks and therefore can go from property line to property line on 200’ frontage. Ms. Beauchamp stated that that is not what the definition says. Ms. Chauvey stated that her interpretation is that the building and septic need to meet the building setback, not the 200'X200' area. Ms. Beauchamp drew a diagram of her interpretation for the board. Mr. Bock asked Ms. Beauchamp what other towns do with this issue. Ms. Beauchamp stated that all communities are different and it varies widely. She added that Planning Board in other communities do not apply buildable area to their subdivision regulations. Mr. Seaverns stated that he agrees except that State law can be interpreted that the Planning Board is the one that has to determine what the buildable area can be’; what makes that lot buildable. He stated that most towns do not define it as a
buildable area, they say a certain area that exists bounded by whatever. Mr. Bock asked how the Planning Board came to this position. Mr. Gylfphe stated that the ordinance came about when people wanted to start subdividing and they came up with the two-acre 200’ of frontage minimums. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she believes the ordinances and regulations have become convoluted over time because changes were not incorporated into both books over the years. Mr. Seaverns stated that in 2002 the Board had attempted to make big changes to remove the inconsistencies but the warrant failed at Town Meeting. Ms. Beauchamp stated that some of the changes had already been incorporated into the subdivision regulations.
Chair Smith asked if members wanted to continue with buildable area to get the issue resolved. All agreed.
Ms. Beauchamp stated that she had incorporated her recommended changes for this issue into the copy of the proposed new subdivision regulations she handed out this evening. She noted that removal of the definition for Buildable Area was on Page 3; the new term Lot Envelope and its definition was on Page 4, noting that the word ‘lot’ in the definition needed to be changed to ‘area’. She stated that this term and definition are as basic as it can get. She then referred them to Page 13, Section V A.5 which lists what must and must not be included in each lot envelope. Mr. Bock asked ifSection V A.5(b)(4) which reads, Slope exceeding 25% was referring to outcroppings. Ms. Beauchamp and Mr. Seaverns said it was not. Mr. Bock asked for an explanation of ‘drainage ways’.
Mr. Seaverns noted that the term would include items such as swales. Mr. Gylfphe, noting that existing structures was on the list of items to be included in the lot envelope, asked Ms. Beauchamp if proposed structure should be included also. Ms. Beauchamp stated she did not feel it should as the Planning Board has nothing to do with building. Mr. Bock, acknowledging Ms. Beauchamp’s earlier comment regarding the uniqueness of Nottingham, asked where in line these new definitions and regulations would bring them in line. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she believed these were in line with what other communities are doing, adding that it is almost identical to Newmarket. Chair Smith stated that he believed that the request for the proposed buildings was appropriate since it indicated how the driveway would get to the house, especially if crossing wetlands. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the board wanted to see driveways or curb-cuts, noting that the
Planning Board does not issue driveway permits. Chair Smith stated that they Planning Board wants to see wetland permits, if necessary. Ms. Beauchamp stated that there is no way to know where the house is going to be placed unless you are the one buying the lot. She explained that the Board does not need to see how it gets to the house, it simply needs to show how it will get to the lot envelope. Ms. Chauvey asked for clarification of local and State requirements as referred to in the definition of Lot Envelope. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Page 13 gives separate lists of items that should and should not be included for the Lot Envelope and that it did not list building setbacks. Mr. Bock inquired about poorly drained soils. Mr. Seaverns and Ms. Beauchamp stated that these are wetlands and are determined by the Wetland Scientist.
Chair Smith inquired about removing ‘buildable area’ from Zoning. Mr. Seaverns stated that it did not have to be removed. Ms. Chauvey asked why it would not be removed if it was no longer used. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it may be a term that the Building Inspector relies on. Ms. Chauvey stated that the Building Inspector has informed her that he has recommended removing the Building Codes from the Zoning Ordinances in the past. He had informed her that Nottingham is one of very few towns that still include the Building Code with the Zoning Ordinances. Ms. Beauchamp agreed. Ms. Chauvey stated she does not understand why the definition, which seems to be incorrect and confusing, would not be put before Town vote to be removed, especially if it is not used within the Zoning Ordinances.
Mr. Seaverns stated that he believes there is a requirement for a definition of an area where buildings can be placed. Mr. Seaverns stated he believes the Building Inspector needs something that defines lots. Chair Smith pointed out that Section VI A.1. of the Zoning Ordinance does not use the term buildable area, however, does use the definition. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the way Section VI A.1. reads is not the same as the definition of buildable area. Ms. Chauvey, acknowledging that the written words in Section IV A.1. does not contain the parentheses, stated that she interprets those words the same as she does the definition for buildable area. Chair Smith stated that he believes they should remove the definition of buildable area from both the Zoning Ordinances and the Subdivision Regulations, adding that this is a discussion for another day. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the definition that is included in Section VI does not pertain to a
subdivision or site plan plat, it refers to building, but the term buildable area and the definition that goes with it does pertain to a subdivision or a site plan plat. Mr. Seaverns noted that the Planning Board should be on the same page as the Building Inspector. Ms. Chauvey agreed, stating that she felt all departments should be working for and supporting the same things. Ms. Mills asked for clarification of what regulations the Building Inspector follows: Mr. Seaverns informed Ms. Mills that the Building Inspector should be following whatever is on the plan and/or in the Zoning Regulations. He further stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance the Building Inspector should be using a 50’ setback for septics on lots that are not substandard.
Chair Smith stated that the Board needed to finish their work on the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Seaverns approached the blackboard and drew a diagram of his definition of lot envelope stating that the lot envelope does not include setbacks. Ms. Chauvey approached the blackboard and drew a diagram of her interpretation of what is now termed ‘buildable area’. Her diagram included the 50’ setbacks in the ‘buildable area’, however, she stated that her interpretation is that the building and the septic can not be in the 50’ setbacks. Chair Smith stated that he believes the Board had interpreted it as it was drawn by Ms. Chauvey. Ms. Beauchamp asked Chair Smith if that is how he wants it moving forward. He stated that it was. Mr. Gylfphe stated he also wanted it that
way since the other way would require 300’ of frontage. Mr. Seaverns disagreed that it pushes the frontage to 300’, stating that if the lot is a 2 acre lot running 200’ wide all the way back, the applicant should be able to get the 60,000 sq. ft. contiguous area, unless the lot should not be built upon (i.e., too much wetlands, etc.). Chair Smith stated that he believes that a change such as this would drive bigger lots in most cases. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it may, it would depend upon the land. Mr. Bonser stated that most other towns are based on soil. He stated that they don’t have this arbitrary 200’X200’. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she has not seen them based on soil in Strafford County. Chair Smith stated that he agrees with 2 acres lots and believes that is a good size lot to keep the town rural. He added that the larger the lot becomes, the less affordable it becomes. Using a case
that came before the Board last week as an example, Chair Smith stated that the acreage of the lot being subdivided off was 4.4, however, there was no way to get a 200’X200’ square or the 60,000 sq. ft. contiguous area without including the setbacks. Ms. Beauchamp agreed, acknowledging that it is a 6 acre lot, and stated that it contains wetlands and is a bad lot for subdivision. Mr. Seaverns stated that anyone is welcome to go to the Zoning Board for a variance. Chair Smith stated that the Board did not want to make that a common practice. Mr. Seaverns stated that that is common practice. He further stated that if the Zoning Board comes forward and tells the Planning Board that they are being overwhelmed with the same request, then the Planning Board should consider whether they want to change it. He feels that if the town wants to remain rural, they need to take a serious look at what is allowed. Ms. Chauvey asked if this was
an effort to drive bigger lots. Mr. Seaverns stated he did not believe it is, it is intended to create better lots. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he believes the interpretation and drawing by Ms. Chauvey is consistent with the way the Board has interpreted this area all along, adding that it will better keep the 2 acre lots, the affordability of buying in Nottingham, and the still maintains the setbacks. Mr. Seaverns stated that every lot needs to be looked at in its own merit. Mr. Davidson asked if the changes they made tonight would affect applications presently before the Board. Chair Smith stated they would not. Ms. Beauchamp asked if all members wanted to remove Buildable Area from the definitions. All said yes.
Ms. Beauchamp asked if all members wanted to remove Section IV F. from the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Seaverns stated he thinks that section was written to prevent subdividing a lot where a new boundary line would be placed within 50’ of an existing structure. Ms. Mills asked if it was taken out if that would allow for things to be built within the setbacks. Chair Smith stated it would not because of the way zoning was written. Ms. Chauvey confirmed with Ms. Beauchamp that if Section IV F was removed from Subdivision Regulations, then the 4K area could appear anywhere on the plat, within the lot envelope. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed, noting that when the developer pulls the building permit, the Building Inspector should be following the 50’ setback in the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Smith stated that
he believed if Zoning stated 50’ that they also needed to follow that as they are required to follow whichever regulation is the most strict. Ms. Beauchamp agreed with this concept, but again noted that this comes under building and the Planning Board does not build. Chair Smith stated that he felt the Planning Board would be approving lots that did not meeting the building requirements, if they were to approve a lot that showed the septic anywhere in the lot envelope. Mr. Seaverns stated that what is missing is the requirement for setbacks to be labeled on the plat, noting that the setbacks requirement would need to read “per the Building Code and Subdivision” noting that that would be 50’ for residential and 100’ for commercial. Ms. Mills asked Mr. Seaverns what he would suggest. He stated that he would suggest getting rid of Section IV F from the Subdivision Regulations and go with ‘lot envelope’ as Ms.
Beauchamp has written it, with the addition of a bullet for setback requirements. Ms. Beauchamp stated that there are setback requirements for the final plat. Mr. Gylfphe and Mr. Davidson stated they felt it should be removed from Subdivision to allow zoning to rule. All members agreed it should be removed.
Chair Smith directed everyone to Page 12 of the proposed Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Beauchamp stated that Mr. Curry had requested the Regional Notice section be changed to reference the RSA instead of setting standards. All members approved.
Chair Smith noted that Section IV H. was lightly highlighted. Ms. Beauchamp noted that she had removed the estimated amount and inserted the words, “in an amount to be determined.” All members approved.
Ms. Beauchamp asked everyone to return to Page 2 to review changes to the definitions. She stated that she had included definitions for the terms ‘abutter’, ‘application acceptance’, ‘application approval’, ‘Certified Wetland Scientist’, ‘Conservation Easement’, ‘Conservation Land’, ‘Public Hearing’, and ‘Public Meeting. She noted that the term ‘Buildable Area’ was marked for removal. Mr. Bock asked Ms. Beauchamp to add the words ‘individuals’ and ‘or other group’ to the description of Conservation Land. Ms. Beauchamp noted that the word ‘lot’ in the definition for Lot Envelope should be changed to ‘area’.
Chair Smith, referencing a conversation with Mr. Ladd (RSL Layout & Design), stated that he thought it would better suit the Board and the applicant to move the driveway permit requirement further down in the process. Mr. Seaverns noted that moving it to the end will prolong the approval phase of the process. Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp to reword Sections III B.1.(a) and (b) to say that approval of these items are required for final approval and to move them to Section III B.7.
Ms. Beauchamp asked members if they were planning to move toward holding acceptance meetings on the first Wednesday of the month and compliance meetings on the third Wednesday of the month. Mr. Seaverns noted that all major subdivisions should be recessed for a second meeting to allow time for the third party reviews (RCCD, NF&RD, etc.) to take place. Ms. Chauvey stated that she believes they all go longer than two meetings. Ms. Beauchamp stated that if they go longer than two meeting, they would always be recessed to the second meeting of the month; always thirty days out. Ms. Chauvey stated that this process would/could put the applicant out six weeks or more when submitting an application, reporting that submission of an application on August 15 would put the case on the agenda for October 3 at the earliest. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board is required to hold the first meeting for the applicant within 30 days. Ms. Chauvey stated this was her point. Mr. Seaverns stated
that the Planning Office would not be able to receive applications that early, adding that the application deadline would have to be submission date range, such as the November 7 meeting application submission date would be from October 10 to October 16. He added that if someone wanted to hand it in sometime between September 12 and October 10 that would be their choice. He indicated that he thought the Planning Board should have a box for submitting applications. Ms. Chauvey did not agree with Mr. Seaverns thoughts on this process, stating she believed it would be a poor practice to turn her head and ignore the applications coming in. Chair Smith told Ms. Beauchamp to leave Section III B.3.(f) for the time being, noting that the Board is not ready to move in that direction.
Ms. Chauvey inquired about the highlights for Section III B.3.(k). Ms. Beauchamp stated that they were leaving those items.
Ms. Beauchamp stated that for minor subdivisions or lot line adjustments, it is possible for the applicant to come before the board and receive both acceptance and approval on the same evening. Members of the board agreed that they were ok with this process.
On Page 13, Ms. Beauchamp noted that she had added zoning district, which she stated means the overlays, and street names under the heading of ‘Identification’. She stated that the lightly highlighted #2. was originally under a different section. The Board approved #3 and #4. Ms. Beauchamp asked them to read, carefully, #5 Lot Envelope, pointing out that it listed what should be included and what should not be included. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed with all Board Members, individually, that they wanted the 4K area to be a minimum distance of 50’ from the lot line on the plats. All agreed. At Mr. Seaverns suggestion, Ms. Beauchamp stated she would add a sub-bullet to (5) stating that all 4K areas must meet building setbacks.
Ms. Beauchamp stated she added the word ‘contiguous’ and the statement regarding test pits to item #9 on Page 15. She added that she was deleting the comment, “…shall be shown on the plat.” from item #12 because it was a requirement of the preliminary plat. Members agreed.
Ms. Beauchamp stated that the highlighted paragraph on Page 16 was also a duplicate and should be deleted. All members agreed.
On Page 17, item (b), Ms. Beauchamp noted that she was adding the term “Class V” and deleting the word ‘street’. She noted that item (h) was being deleted.
Ms. Beauchamp stated she felt this was a good place for the Board to stop.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| |
