NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 3, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Skip Seaverns, Vice-Chair Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
Mr. Mark Harding
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Ms. Gail Mills
Mr. Mary Bonser
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Ronald Machos, Abutter
Mr. Bruce Mason, Abutter
Mr. Curt Naleid, Abutter
Mr. Randy Orivis, Orvis/Drew LLC
Mr. John Daskey, Property Owner
Ms. Jeannette Daskey, Property Owner
Ms. Dave Masison, Abutter
Mr. Brian Metivier
Ms. Stacey Metivier
Mr. Terry Bonser
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM.
BUILDING CODE ZONING CHANGE:
Mr. Smith read for the record a memo from the Building Inspector regarding the wording change for Section II A of the Building Code. Mr. Seaverns voiced concern that changing from the International Code to the State Code may leave holes in our existing building codes as written.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to change the wording of Section II A of the Building Code to read, “The Building Inspector shall not issue a building permit unless the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as most recently amended, the Building Code, as most recently amended, the State of NH Building Code, as most recently amended, and the State of NH Fire Code, as most recently amended, have been complied with.” Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Seaverns stated he would like to the Planning Board to follow up with the Building Inspector regarding any differences between the International Code and State Code, and any affects the change would have on the whole of Nottingham’s Building Code and Zoning Ordinances.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to set the date for the public hearing for changes to the Building Code and Zoning Ordinances and a workshop on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 7:00 PM. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – DANIELS, JONATHAN & LISA – COOPER HILL ROAD - MAP 1 LOT 70 - CASE #P06-14-SUB:
The Chair opened the public meeting on Case #P06-09-SUB, Map 1 Lot 70 at 7:35 PM.
Mr. Smith read for the record a request from Mr. Peter Landry for a continuance on this case until February 2007 because the applicant has not received approval on their dredge and fill. He estimated it would take about a month to complete communications with them.
Ms. Beauchamp questioned the 65-day deadline. Mr. Seaverns stated that he felt the requested was worded well enough to allow the applicant to extend it beyond the 65 days.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the hearing of Daniels, Jonathan & Lisa, Map 1 Lot 70, Case P06-14-SUB, for site design and final approval, until February 7, 2007 at 7:30 PM. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – NOTTINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT – STAGE ROAD - MAP 29 LOT 12 - CASE #P06-17-SUB:
The Chair opened the public meeting on Case #P06-17-SUB, Map 29 Lot 12 at 7:37 PM.
Mr. Sweeney addressed the Board stating that he believed the Planning Board had received copies of all applications and/or permits. Mr. Seaverns asked if they had received approval for all applications. Mr. Sweeney responded that they have approval for the driveway and the wetlands. He stated the subdivision approval was already received pending wetland approval, however they do not have the subdivision approval number, yet. Mr. Smith asked if there were new plans with the approval numbers. Mr. Sweeney stated Mr. Landry has not done them, yet, because they do not have the subdivision number. Mr. Seaverns stated that he thought they were here for acceptance only. Mr. Sweeney stated they would like approval, also. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board cannot approve something that is not in front of
them. Mr. Sweeney stated that he felt, somewhere in the process, someone needed to make a list of what is needed for approval so as to save a great deal of time. Mr. Sweeney asked when they could come back for approval and have the mylar signed. Mr. Smith stated they could come back at the next meeting.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the application of the Nottingham School District for a subdivision for the future fire station, Map 29 Lot 12, Case #P06-17-SUB as complete. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the hearing until January 17, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING – ORVIS/DREW, LLC FOR DASKEY, JOHN – NORTH RIVER LAKE ROAD – MAP 1 LOT 31 - CASE #P07-01-SIT:
The Chair opened the Public Meeting on Case #P07-01-SIT, Map 1 Lot 31 at 7:45 PM.
Mr. Orvis spoke in representation of John Daskey. He placed a plot plan on the chalkboard for all to see. He stated that Mr. Daskey has 13.98 acres on North River Lake Road. He stated that a portion of the property goes into Northwood. Mr. Orvis stated that there is currently a family residence on the property and Mr. Daskey’s proposal is to subdivide the lot giving the residence 4.5 acres and the other lot 8.75 acres. His proposal for the other lot is a multifamily development with a total of 4 units. Mr. Orvis stated that they are not sure of the exact status of the road, however, it is their understanding that the Town maintains it. He stated that as far as he knows, if the Town maintains it, it is a Class V road. He stated that the Town may not own it, but they maintain it. Mr.
Orvis reported that the plat shows the deeded area 25 feet from the center of the road. He noted for the record that they were here to see how to proceed and to get input from the abutters. Mr. Gylfphe responded that North River Road is a private road even though the Town maintains it. He stated that the Town maintaining it does not make it a Class V road. Mr. Orvis stated he was not going to say yes or no on that, he was simply saying that it is publicly maintained. He suggested we check with the Town Attorney. Mr. Seaverns stated that the applicant would need to file an application before the Town would be willing to contact their Attorney. Mr. Orvis stated they had filed an application, complete with application fees for abutters and so forth. Mr. Seaverns noted that the application was for design review only. He continued stating that design review provides that applicant with the opportunity to gain information in regards
to their plan. He informed Mr. Orvis that there is a road issue. Mr. Orvis asked how the applicant can find out if the road is a problem without filing an application. Mr. Seaverns stated that if Mr. Orvis believes he has an acceptable plan they can bring it before the Planning Board and the Board will either accept it as being complete or deny it because it is not on what the Town considers a Class V road. He stated that the applicant could then go to the Zoning Board.
Moving on, Mr. Seaverns inquired if the plan was showing four units. Mr. Orvis stated that it was showing two duplexes. Mr. Orvis then asked if two duplexes qualify as multifamily development or if the applicant would have to do one building with four units. He stated it was not clear in the Ordinances. Mr. Smith noted that the Standards state that a duplex shall meet the multifamily land and density requirements. Ms. Bonser stated that the plan looks like it has a cul-de-sac and they are not allowed in Nottingham. Mr. Smith stated that although it looks like one, it is not, it is just a driveway. Mr. Orvis stated that if they Fire Department would prefer a hammerhead driveway instead of a circular, they could do that on a site plan. Mr. Smith stated that the issue of frontage being on a
private road, if you read C, it says, “The minimum frontage requirement shall be 300 feet on a Town or State maintained right of way.” Mr. Seaverns noted that that was the reason Mr. Orvis had worded his earlier statement as he had, however, the Town does not maintain it. It does plow in the winter. Mr. Orvis reported that he has been told by the residents that the road is also graded. Ms. Bonser stated that as an emergency way the Town is permitted to do a minimum amount of work, which could include grading. Mr. Orvis stated that he understands that.
Mr. Smith asked if there was 100 feet between the two structures. Mr. Orvis replied that there is. Mr. Seaverns asked if there were other paths and/or roadwork being shown on the plan. Mr. Orvis stated that there is a network of paths there from the former gravel pit. Ms. Bonser stated she felt the biggest hurdle was the private road issue. Mr. Orvis asked if there would be any fire protection issues. Mr. Smith stated that would be up to the fire department. Mr. Gylfphe asked if Mr. Daskey was planning to sell the land into joint ownership with the units. Mr. Daskey replied that he was. Mr. Gylfphe asked if he was planning a common well for all four units. Mr. Daskey stated he thought it would be two wells, one per building. Mr. Orvis stated that they had done some test
pitting and there is a flat area that is an ideal site for a community septic. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he believed the State becomes involved in the wells when there are four or more units. Mr. Orvis stated he also believed it was right around four units.
Mr. Smith asked if any abutters wished to speak. Mr. Mason stated that he has lived on North River Lake Road for approximately 28 years and he is concerned with the road. He reported that there is minimal maintenance on the road stating it is graded only once or twice a year, and very little aggregate is brought in. Mr. Mason stated it is plowed, noting that about mid-March the corner just prior to the applicant’s property washes out. He voiced concern that the extra traffic on the road would make it impassable for the others beyond to get to their homes. He stated that the worst section of the road is between the applicant’s house and the sharp corner toward his house. Mr. Naleid from Northwood voiced concern that the deeded access for this property is actually through Northwood, which is not
maintained. He stated that there are people who plow it and help out in the Spring, but the Town does not. Mr. Naleid also asked if this would be considered a major subdivision. Mr. Seaverns stated that under the current Zoning Ordinances it would be.
Mr. Seaverns stated that the Board’s records indicated that the road is not a Class V road, therefore the subdivision would need to go through other steps. He noted that this kind of growth on that type of road would most probably require some type of upgrade. He stated that if the road is accurately on the list of emergency roadways provided to the Board, then it would not be listed on any Capital Improvement Plans to be upgraded. He also stated that if it was determined that it is a Class V or better road then this proposal would meet the requirements of scattered and premature.
Mr. Smith asked if anyone else in the audience had any questions. Ms. Beauchamp asked if they had considered talking to the Conservation Commission about a conservation easement. Mr. Daskey asked if the people that live there would be able to use their land. Mr. Smith stated that a conservation easement would place some restrictions on the use of the land. In response to Mr. Naleid’s concern regarding access to the property, Mr. Orvis stated that this lot is part of the Cooper subdivision, approved on October 20, 1994, and access comes down North Lake Road to Cooper Hill Road. Ms. Beauchamp asked Mr. Orvis for the recorded plan number. Mr. Orvis stated it is D23291. Mr. Seaverns asked Mr. Mason if North River Lake Road went through his property. Mr. Mason confirmed that it did. Mr.
Seaverns asked if the driveway for proposed lot two was across from the dam. Mr. Orvis stated that it is just beyond the dam.
Mr. Smith informed Mr. Orvis that the Planning Board had to mail 3 additional notices.
Ms. Bonser questioned whether the Tax Map was correct. Ms. Chauvey stated that a call had come in earlier in the day and that the ownership of Lot 37 is under question. According to Town records, the Town is the owner. Mr. Orvis stated that the property appears to be part of Mr. Fanjoy’s deed. Someone from the audience stated that Mr. Fanjoy was planning to contact Charlie Brown, Town Administrator.
Mr. Smith asked if the applicant was ready to move forward. Mr. Orvis asked how the applicant could verify road status. Mr. Smith stated that the Board would require a formal application to pursue the issue. Mr. Seaverns stated that the applicant could go right to Zoning, if they chose. Mr. Gylfphe stated that the applicant may want to start at the Selectmen’s Office. Mr. Seaverns stated that the Selectmen’s Office has a list of emergency ways and that North River Lake Road is on that list. He felt that based upon the list, the application does not meet the requirements for a subdivision. Mr. Daskey confirmed that subdivisions are not allowed on private roads. Ms. Bonser stated that the Planning Board does not have the legislative authority to grant a subdivision on a private road. Mr. Daskey asked who does have the authority. Ms. Bonser stated that no one does. The applicant is welcome to put in a road to Town specifications and at some point the road would most likely
become a Town road.
Mr. Orvis summarized that the first thing to be done is determine the road status. Then, if it is determined that subdivision is allowed on the road, the road condition itself needs to be looked at. Mr. Seaverns stated that that is true and at this point the subdivision would be considered scattered and premature and fall under a whole new set of rules and issues.
Mr. Orvis asked if the applications for both the subdivision and the multifamily development should be submitted simultaneously. Mr. Seaverns stated that decision is entirely up to the applicant.
The applicants left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – RSL LAYOUT & DESIGN FOR BLUE FIN DEVELOPMENT – KENNARD ROAD – MAP 11 LOT 7 - CASE #P06-09-SUB:
The Chair opened the public meeting on Case #P06-09-SUB, Map 11 Lot 7 at 8:40 PM.
Ms. Chauvey stated that she had not received a request to continue from RLS this week. She also stated that something had been received from DES on their dredge and fill, however, it was not an approval.
Mr. Smith inquired about the 65 day deadline. Ms. Chauvey stated that the application has not been accepted, yet. Ms. Bonser asked Ms. Chauvey to confirm that the application has not been accepted and to enter that information into the minutes so as not have this discussion at every meeting. Ms. Chauvey checked past minutes regarding this case and the following has taken place:
September 6, 2006 - RSL appeared for the first public meeting. A motion passed to accept a waiver for the topography. The applicant was informed they would need to go before the ZBA for the proposed driveway. Strafford Regional Planning Commission’s completeness letter was addressed. A motion passed to recess the hearing for the design review and approval of the subdivision application until October 4, 2006. No motion was made to accept the application.
September 19, 2006 – RSL Layout & Design was denied a variance from the ZBA for the proposed driveway.
October 4, 2006 – RSL submitted letter requesting a continuance until November 15, 2006. A motion passed to recess the public hearing until November 15, 2006 at 7:15 PM.
November 15, 2006 – RSL reported they moved the driveway and reapplied for dredge & fill. They have not applied for driveway permits because they want to wait to see what happens with dredge & fill. Mr. Seaverns inquired about the 65 day deadline. Ms. Chauvey reported there had not been a motion to accept the application, yet. A motion was made to continue the public hearing until December 6, 2006.
December 6, 2006 – RSL reported they had not yet received dredge & fill approval. Ms Ladd requested that this application keep being continued until a response from DES on the dredge & fill had been received. She stated that if no response has been received by the date of the meeting, RSL would call to request another continuance. A motion passed to continue the public hearing until December 20, 2006 at 7:35 PM.
December 20, 2006 – RSL called to request continuance because DES response to dredge & fill had not been received. Motion passed to continue the public hearing until January 3, 2007.
January 3, 2007 – see these minutes.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the public meeting of a subdivision application from RSL Layout & Design for Blue Fin Development, Kennard Road, Map 11 Lot 7, Case #P06-09-SUB to February 21, 2007 at 7:30. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Seaverns asked Ms. Chauvey to send a letter to RSL letting them know that the case had been continued without a request and that would not happen again. Mr. Seaverns noted that most likely this hearing will have to be re-notified.
PRELIMINARY – METIVIER, BRIAN & STACY – 3 LEDGE FARM ROAD – MAP 29 LOT 12:
The Chair opened the preliminary hearing at 8:50 PM.
Mr. & Mrs. Metivier introduced themselves and explained that they are currently looking at purchasing 3 Ledge Farm Road with the idea of turning into an Inn and function hall. They stated that they were here to gather information on zoning of that property and what steps they need to take moving forward. Mr. Metivier stated that, with the three accessory buildings, they are looking at growing to 20 or 25 guest rooms, and using the main building of the barn as a facility for 200 people. Mr. Metivier noted that the current owner is in the process of subdividing the property and that they would be purchasing the property with the subdivision in place. Mr. Metivier questioned whether the cottage could be rented as a separate residence, and if not, could it be included as a rental of the Inn. Mr. Gylfphe stated
that they need to go before the ZBA to change zoning of that property from residential/agricultural to commercial/industrial. Mrs. Metivier asked if they would have to change zoning, instead of getting a special exception for a B&B, because of the size of the Inn they were proposing. Mr. Smith stated that the size of the operation they are proposing does not constitute accessory use of the residence. Mr. Seaverns noted that this particular district has the capability of doing a number of things, even though it is not labeled a district, yet. He stated that it is certainly historic. Mr. Seaverns stated that he believed this property was an Inn at one time and that may help the applicants in their endeavor. Mrs. Metivier asked if this was located in an historic district. Mr. Seaverns stated that Nottingham does not have historic districts at this time.
Mr. Bonser asked the Metiviers if they had obtained copies of the Subdivision Regulations and Building Code and Zoning Ordinances. Mrs. Metivier stated they had gotten quite a bit off the web site. Mr. Seaverns asked them if the had a copy of the Site Plan Regulations, which are not on the web site, but contains information such as off-street parking. Mrs. Metivier stated she would stop into the Planning Office to obtain the rest. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the business that the applicant was proposing fit in with the Master Plan, also, and it may be worth their while to get a copy of that from the Planning Office, too.
Mr. Smith asked the Metiviers if they planned to wait until the subdivision was approved before moving ahead. Mrs. Metivier responded that the purchase would be contingent upon the subdivision being in place and their ability to do what they want with the property. Mr. Smith stated that, with the subdivision in place, the whole parcel would not need to be changed to commercial. Mrs. Metivier agreed.
Ms. Bonser voiced concern at the applicant going around in circles between the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustments. She felt that the applicant’s best process would be to come before the Planning Board to get all zoning issues out in the open before going to the ZBA to request the change to a commercial zone.
Mr. Smith asked the Metivier’s if they were proposing a main residence in the in. They responded that they were. He then asked if they were proposing two residences with the cottage. Ms. Metivier stated they would try to include that in as an Inn rental. They would not be looking at long term rentals. She stated that they would phrase it as a guest room. Ms. Metivier stated that the current owners had told her it had previously been used in this manner. Mr. Seaverns stated that it may be best for the applicant to go before Zoning first to see if the idea is feasible. Mrs. Metivier asked if they could apply to both Boards at the same time. Mr. Seaverns stated they could.
Mrs. Metivier gave the Board some background stating that they currently reside in Lee. Both attended UNH. They grew up local, she in Kingston. She stated that she currently works for a hotel in the seacoast area. She stated that Mr. Metivier works in sales and catering for hotels. Mrs. Metivier noted that they have been in the industry for quite awhile.
The Board thanked the Metiviers for coming.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board opened discussion on the minutes.
Ms. Mills noted that there were four sets of minutes to be approved this evening. She inquired about compliance with RSA 91-A, which requires the minutes to be available to the public in 144 hours. Ms. Chauvey stated that the minutes are available to anyone who requests them, in draft form. Ms. Bonser stated that the Selectmen have the same process with their minutes. They are available if someone were to ask, however, they are not posted until they are approved.
Mr. Seaverns inquired about the requested changes to the November 29th minutes. Ms. Chauvey stated she had moved the Conservation Commission conversation to the beginning of the minutes and she had changed the first sentence of that section as requested by Mr. Seaverns. She stated that she also corrected the section regarding liability at Ms. Bonser’s request. Ms. Bonser asked if the polling of the 200X200 area was included. Ms. Chauvey stated it was. Ms. Mills asked if she had given any reason for not being ok with the buildable area in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Chauvey stated that when Ms. Beauchamp polled, Ms. Mills statement was just that. Ms. Mills stated she thought it seemed like something was missing. Ms. Chauvey offered Ms. Mills the tapes. Ms. Mills states she
was all set, she would vote a qualified affirmative.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 29, 2006 meeting, as written. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
In reference to the minutes of the December 6th meeting, Ms. Bonser noted that in the third sentence of the Conservation Commission paragraph, the word “need” was written twice. Mr. Harding noted that the word “suggest” in sentence five of the first paragraph should be “suggested.”
Ms. Mills made a motion to accept the minutes of the December 6, 2006 meeting, with the above corrections. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
In reference to the minutes of the December 13th meeting, Ms. Mills noted that the word “off” in the first sentence should be “office.”
Ms. Mills made a motion to accept the minutes of the December 13, 2006 meeting, with the above corrections. Mr. Harding seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Mills noted that there was something wrong with the minutes from the December 20th meeting. Ms. Chauvey confirmed there was something wrong with them. The minutes ended in the middle of a sentence. Ms. Mills asked to have the conversation regarding buildable area typed verbatim. Ms. Chauvey stated she would do the best she could. Mr. Seaverns noted that the first paragraph on page three read, “He reported stated…” Ms. Chauvey stated she would review the minutes of the 20th in their entirety and resubmit to the Board when corrected.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Smith apologized for canceling the workshop meeting last Wednesday. He believed there were only three people able to attend.
Mail was distributed.
Ms. Chauvey informed the Board that the definition of buildable area, as written in the Zoning Ordinance, states that septic systems cannot be placed in the 50-foot setbacks. She noted that the Board was on a timeline and if they intended to make changes she needed to submit the notice for publication the next day. Ms. Beauchamp stated that if the Board intended to allow the 10-foot setbacks set by the State the Zoning Ordinance should be corrected to support that. Ms. Beauchamp recommended removing, “…all existing setback ordinances…” from the sentence. Ms. Mills stated that people have been telling her they want the 50-foot setback to remain. She stated that many people had planned to attend the workshop meeting last Wednesday. Ms. Bonser stated she did not think it should be
discussed tonight. She stated she felt it should be on the agenda so people would know it was going to be discussed. Ms. Mills stated she had contacted DES because she had been getting such conflicting information on the issue. Ms. Beauchamp reiterated that the issue is that the Board has a deadline. Ms. Chauvey confirmed she was only raising the issue of publishing a notice if there was going to be a public hearing on this topic. Ms. Bonser stated, again for the record, that the issue can be resolved by taking Section IV F out of the Subdivision Regulations, which could be done any time of the year. Ms. Beauchamp stated that if the Zoning Ordinances are more restrictive, then Zoning holds. Ms. Bonser stated that Zoning only refers to the setbacks, not Town setbacks. She stated that it is the Subdivision Regulations, which reference Town setbacks. Ms. Bonser stated that there are so many people that want to weigh in on this
subject. Mr. Seaverns stated that we need to start from the ground up on this issue. Ms. Bonser stated she did not think we should talk about it tonight. She noted that many people want to talk about this. She felt it should be high on the Board’s agenda for next year. Ms. Mills stated that many people want to have a public hearing on this. Mr. Smith stated that if the Board wanted to change it this evening, his suggestion would be to end the definition after the third sentence. Ms. Chauvey stated she needed clarification on the process of changing the Zoning Ordinances. Ms. Bonser informed her changes must go on the Town Warrant. Ms. Chauvey stated, again, that the definition of buildable area, as written in Nottingham’s Zoning Ordinances, states that septic systems must meet all existing setbacks and ordinances.
Ms. Bonser stated the Board could do a simplistic change such as Mr. Smith suggested or they could wait and do it after more review with a clean-cut definition. Ms. Chauvey asked if this change was something that would require posting. Ms. Bonser stated that Mr. Smith was recommending a clean-cut definition. Mr. Smith stated he felt they were not giving anything up by leaving the rest of the definition off. Mr. Seaverns noted that to remove these words arbitrarily may leave other areas of the Zoning Ordinance without setbacks. Ms. Bonser stated the Board does not have enough time to review this. Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Smith agreed. Ms. Chauvey asked the Board what the responsibilities/ramifications are to the Town that they do not follow the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Seaverns stated that if a Court
is called in, they are usually interested in consistency. He also noted that this is a very confusing subject and the Planning Board has been attempting to fix it for quite some time. Ms. Chauvey thanked him for the clarification. Ms. Chauvey asked if the definition of buildable area was going for public hearing. Mr. Smith stated no.
Ms. Beauchamp handed out copies of a synopsis of the changes made since 2000. Ms. Beauchamp stated these were for the Board’s information and they contained information on why the change was being proposed. She wanted the Board to note areas where Zoning changes had failed, however, the Subdivision or Site Plan Regulations had already been approved and put in place.
Mr. Seaverns informed the Board that he had spoken with Attorney Teague regarding the paragraph for postponements. He stated that Attorney Teague understood their reservation about keeping the word “necessary” in the title. Attorney Teague suggested dropping it. Ms. Beauchamp questioned the term “denied with conditions.” Mr. Seaverns stated that Mr. Teague suggested the Board keep the term. Mr. Seaverns then asked Attorney Teague if the paragraph should be made more specific to indicate in cases of acceptance of application the Board could deny it with conditions. He stated that Attorney Teague suggested they leave it as written. Mr. Seaverns reported that Attorney Teague informed him that this paragraph will be helpful in the event of a judicial review.
Ms. Beauchamp handed out copies of the proposed new application and proposed subdivision regulations. She stated she just wanted to verify some changes that were made. She reviewed the RSA 674:1 IV paragraph inserted at the top of page two. Members of the Board like the paragraph as written. Ms. Beauchamp explained that things in red are things the Board had discussed. Ms. Beauchamp stated she added something to the Compliance Checklist for Section VI A 6. She requested that the members review it to see if it was something they wanted to keep. The Board approved. Ms. Beauchamp stated she also made changes to the last page, Attachment B.
Mr. Smith asked when the members wanted to hold the public hearing for the subdivision application. He and Ms. Mills felt it was ready. Ms. Chauvey stated there are items (in pink) that Ms. Beauchamp has stated she is not sure if the Board is aware of. Mr. Smith stated that if they should take the time to address them now. Ms. Bonser stated there is a meeting on the Building Code on Tuesday, January 23rd. She stated we could add the application to that meeting. She suggested they have a final talk about it on the 17th.
Ms. Chauvey asked the Board for clarification on what to report in the official Town Report. She asked if the Board wanted all applications that had been received reported, as well as, how many were accepted and denied. She noted that the later numbers could include roll-overs from the previous year. The Board agreed that this is what should be reported. She stated she would e-mail the report to members.
Ms. Beauchamp stated she had an idea for the department review of files the Board had talked about. She handed out copies of a Department Review Form. She explained that one stays with the file so the clerk will always know when things were sent out, to what department, when it’s due, etc. Mr. Harding confirmed that it is used as a circulation tracking document. Mr. Smith suggested that the Department Review Form have one line for the department’s request and a separate second line for the reason for the request. Mr. Seaverns agreed.
Ms. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
