NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
May 28, 2008
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED & AMMENDED
Type of Meeting: Scheduled Workshop
Method of Notification: Posted at the Nottingham Municipal Building & Nottingham Post Office
Meeting Location: Nottingham Municipal Building
Members Present: Mr. Dave Smith; Chair, Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair,
Ms. Sue Mooney, Mr. Scott Canney, Mr. Skip Seaverns,
Bob Davidson, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative,
Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member,
Members Absent:
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Deb Stevens; Nottingham Conservation Commission, Celia Abrams: Nottingham Conservation Commission, Cheryl Smith; Nottingham Conservation Commission, Peter Landry: Surveyor & Nottingham Conservation Commission, Charlene Andersen.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:08pm. Ms. Chauvey was seated for Mr. Davidson, but at 7:15pm Mr. Davidson arrived. The Board briefly discussed the agenda for the evening and noted that they would like to review the Subdivision Regulations before the proposed Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Stevens and Ms. Abrams left the meeting.
Point of Order: Mrs. Sears and Ms. Chauvey left the meeting briefly to make copies. Ms. Chauvey was no longer seated when Mr. Davidson arrived.
Subdivision Regulations
Chair Smith started the review on page 8, were the Board left off in the fall. They reviewed each section and discussed, from the working copy of the proposed regulations (dated November 16, 2007).
Section III-Procedure and Review: B.3. (k) Expedited review
The Board discussed whether or not this was something an applicant would apply for or something that would happen as part of the process. They discussed the notices: citing that the public notice now reads “If this application is accepted as complete and time permits, the public hearing will follow.” They read the RSA. The Board determined that this was section was not needed, and it is covered by RSA. Mr. Netishen believes because there is an RSA, it too should be referenced in our regulations. Ms. Mooney stated she would abstain from removing it, as she didn’t think
it had stand alone status.
Section III-Procedure and Review: B.4 Application Compliance Review Procedure (See Compliance Checklist)
The Board had no changes to this section.
Section III-Procedure and Review: B.5 (a-d) Board Decision Procedure
The Board discussed each one including the process involving the letters of credit during the road construction process and when an applicant gets the Certificate of Occupancy and the inspections, and the like. Ms. Smith asked if there should be a specific number of days allowed for an extension. Chair Smith explained and gave examples noting that every situation is different, and that it would be difficult to give a set amount of days. They read the related RSA. Ms. Smith made other suggested wording but the Board did not use.
Mr. Netishen asked if the wording of (c) could be changed to: “will ask the BOS, in writing, to accept the Letter of Credit…” Mr. Seaverns noted it was not the Board that deals with the letter of credit. Ms. Chauvey felt the Board should research and review this whole section and come back to the next meeting with any suggested changes. The Board agreed but made the following minor wording changes to read:
(a) The Board must make the decision of approval, disapproval, or recommendation for revision(s) within sixty-five (65) days.
(b) An extension may be made per RSA 676:4 I, if it is mutually agreed upon in writing, by the Applicant and/or Agent and the Board.
(c) It is recognized that the Applicant and/or Agent, when submitting his/her plat(s) and completed application, may not have performed actions that his/her plat(s) indicate such as building a road, installing dry hydrants, placing permanent boundary markers, etc.; therefore, the Board may ask that the Board of Selectmen accept a Letter of Credit, Performance Bond, etc., until such actions are completed.
(d) The Board shall notify the Applicant and/or Agent of the final decision in writing.
Chair Smith read the next Section.
Section III-Procedure and Review: B.6(a-g) Final Approval Submission Procedure:
The Board had many questions on this section and would like to have input from Michelle Beauchamp from SRPC, who originally wrote this document. Mrs. Sears will ask her and get back to the Board.
Mr. Landry gave his opinion of #6 and what the intent of it may be. The Board discussed various examples and possibilities; and questioned if it was a Planning Board process. They also discussed that they may not need 12 copies as stated. The Board thought this may be an “As Built.” type information.
Section III-Procedure and Review: B.7(a-d) Approved Plat Requirement
Chair Smith read the Section. They discussed possibly switching the order of Section 6 & 7. They discussed who gets and the number of copies of the mylar. They would like to have the fourth copy go to the Department of Environmental Services of NH. They also correct the typo that is missing the word “County” in two places.
SECTION IV - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS OF DESIGN
A. Conformity to Official Map
There was a lengthy discussion of an “official map”. Ms. Chauvey noted that the Town does have one, but it was last adopted around 1980. Mr. Seaverns felt “(a) The subdivision or lot line adjustment shall be in harmony with the official map of the Town of Nottingham.” should be removed as it could never be met.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to remove (a) from Section IV
SECOND by Chair Smith
Ms. Smith stated that she didn’t think it should be removed. Mr. Landry made a point that it didn’t say when it had to “be in harmony with the official map”. Ms. Chauvey agreed and withdrew her motion. Chair Smith withdrew his second. Mr. Seaverns felt the Board should send a letter to the Board of Selectmen asking them to update/create an “official” map.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to send the BOS a letter asking for an official map.
SECOND by Scott Canney
Mr. Davidson suggested including in the letter a recommendation of how often the official map should be updated. Mr. Seaverns noted the tax map is updated every year. The Board concluded that it would be ideal for the official map to be done at the same time. Ms. Smith noted that there may be grants available to help with these costs. Mr. Netishen wanted just one letter to go to the BOS. The Board did not agree.
Point of Order: Ms. Chauvey made a motion, to remove (a). The Board later realized, when calling for the Vote, that she was no longer seated but agreed to keep her motions, as she withdrew one, and they changed the other motion as follows.
MOTION by Mr. Davidson to send the BOS a letter asking for an official map.
SECOND by Chair Smith
VOTE 4-Aye. 1- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mrs. Sears will write the letter for the Board’s review and bring to the next workshop.
Point of Order: Mr. Gylfphe left the meeting, after Chair Smith read the next section.
Chair Smith read the next section:
B. Special Flood Hazard Areas (#1-3)
Mr. Seaverns questioned the date of the flood maps; it may be May 5, 2005. Mr. Landry discussed the lot sizes and if there was a need for them to be in it. He suggested all applications should include 100 year flood elevation data. The Board agreed to the change.
C. Regional Notice
No changes made
D. Third Party Reviews
The Board minor changes to the wording of this section including input from Ms. Mooney and Ms. Smith.
Mr. Davidson discussed having applicants know the costs upfront. Mr. Landry discussed how other Towns charge a large flat fee, like $1,500 in Kingston, when the applicant gets any unused balance returned to them at the end of the project. Chair Smith noted the escrow account for completeness review (3.4) is in the new application on the flow chart so the applicant will know ahead of time. Actual costs can not always be determined ahead of time. Mr. Landry was not happy with some of the need for a third party to review every application; he called it a “slap in the face to professionals”. Chair Smith noted that each application is different and done on individual bases. The Board noted that it is noted that there is a starting up of an escrow account in the amount of $250 on the new document. Ms. Chauvey noted
that collecting an escrow account on every application may present a procedure issue but they are working on those financial procedures. The Board will review this section for “homework” and the new application at a later meeting.
The Board will also continue to review the rest of these proposed regulations, for “homework” (the last 13pgs.).
MOTION by Mr. Davidson to adjourn the meeting at 9:30pm
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The next schedule meeting is a workshop on June 11, 2008.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa L. Sears
Land Use Clerk
These minutes are subject to approval at a regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting at which time the above minutes are corrected or accepted.
| 
