NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
July 23, 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, Mr. Skip Seaverns, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member, ,
Members Absent: Ms. Sue Mooney, Bob Davidson, Mr. Scott Canney, Ms. Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk,; Scott Cole; Beals Associates, Frank J. Catapano; Newberry North
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:07pm. Ms. Chauvey was seated for Ms. Mooney.
Minutes
July 9, 2008
Line 17 change Alternates to Alternatives
Line 26 remove building
Line 41 change Alternates to Alternatives
Line 120 change for to be
Line 150 change complied to complied
MOTION by Mr. Netishen to accept the minutes of July 9, 2008 as amended
SECOND by Mr. Seaverns
VOTE 3-Aye. 0- Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Route 4 Realty Trust - Brooks Crossing
Mr. Cole stated that all the construction aspects of the roads are complete. He gave the Board a brief history of the project and asked for the bond reduction/release of the letter of credit. He noted that Ray Wenninger, P.E. from Rockingham Count Conservation District (RCCD) had visited the site and there is a copy of his favorable report in the file. Chair Smith read the July 11, 2008 letter from Cynthia Smith, RCCD also in favor of the request. The Board reviewed the file and reports, and discussed previous construction issues that had been resolved the Road Agent and with Mr. Cole and Mr. Catapano.
Mr. Catapano stated that the development was almost completed, with as few as 5-7 lots remaining from the total of 41 lots. He stated that in the past this Board has accepted a development as complete when at least 75% of the lots are completed before the road is accepted by the Town. There was discussion around who is responsible if/when the road is turned over to the Town and then one of the builders on the remaining lots does damage to the road. It would be fixed at a cost to the Town, because the Town already voted to conditionally accept these roads (Nicolas Way and Sophia Way) in March 2008.
Mr. Seaverns noted that there has been issues with how best to handle this; when a project is very close to complete and the roads and drainage, etc., are completed but not all the lots are sold and built out. Mr. Seaverns would like to know if there was a low dollar amount, maintenance type bond for this project. Mr. Catapano stated that there are no other bonds left on this project. They all briefly discussed the current conditions of the road. Mr. Catapano noted that all minor changes/repairs requested by the Town’s Road Agent have been completed. Mrs. Sears will confirm that there are no other outstanding bonds on this project.
Ms.Chauvey noted that she had no concerns for the current conditions of the road but for when the remaining lots are developed, there could be damage to the roads that the Town will now be responsible for. After much discussion, Mr. Cole and Mr. Catapano noted that they believe there are RSAs or Town ordinances that would hold the builder responsible for any damage done.
Mr. Catapano stated that they had met all the terms for the road construction: the Engineer from RCCD and the Town’s Road Agent has signed off on the project. Ms. Chauvey asked about a maintenance bond to cover any damage to the road done by the last remaining, unfinished lots/builders. Mr. Catapano said there wasn’t a maintenance bond on this project. Chair Smith noted that a maintenance bond must be put in at the beginning of this process. Mr. Catapano noted that these roads are to Town standards. Ms. Chauvey noted that she has concerns for damage to the road, once it has been finalized by the Board of Selectmen. She noted that there is no heavy trucking ordinance in Town, either.
Mr. Seaverns would like Ms. Sears to research if there are any other letters of credit covering any other aspects of this project. Mr. Catapano stated there was none.
MOTION by Mr. Seaverns to recommend to the Board of Selectmen to release the letter of credit for Brooks Crossing; the amount was $203,547.19 down to zero dollars and based on the recommendation by Rockingham County Conservation District
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 3-Aye. 1- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Netishen abstained for the vote, Ms. Chauvey opposed the vote.
Old/New Business
Chair Smith showed Mrs. Sears the site plan review for Higher Ground Baptist Church that she had difficulty finding.
Mr. Netishen wanted a policy regarding how the Town’s Highway Department approves the roads. He would like some form of documentation be added to the Town’s policy. Discussion continued on roads in subdivisions and how they are approved. Ms. Chauvey agreed with Mr. Netishen. Mr. Seaverns agreed but questioned how it could be done.
Correspondence
The Board discussed the letter from Mike Russo on behalf of the Nottingham Zoning Board of Adjustments, dated July 16, 2008. The Board discussed the letter and the process for cases that come before both Boards. Mr. Netishen, Ms. Chauvey and Mr. Gylfphe agreed that it would be a great idea for both Boards to meet and improve communications between the two Boards.
Ms. Chauvey noted that recent grant may require the Master Plan be updated and that may be a place to start (with both Boards working together).
Mrs. Sears noted that RSAs state that at a joint meeting between the Boards, it is the Chair of the Planning Board that would run the meeting.
Mr. Seaverns stated that he agreed with Ms. Chauvey that jointly updating the Master Plan, with the ZBA would be a good idea, but he stated that what is requested in the letter, for topics to discuss was a poor idea. He stated that the Town’s vision is in the Master Plan. He also stated that he believes that if the ZBA has a problem with the zoning/land use regulations they should be making recommendations to correct them. He noted that he believes a meeting to discuss what was in the letter would be unproductive. He was willing meet with them to update the Town’s Master Plan to reflect the Town’s vision.
As for process with applicants, Mr. Seaverns noted it was the applicant who decides which Board to go before first. He commented on the ZBA’s role in the interpreting “the spirit of the ordinance” and how he was willing to discuss other specific agenda items, and use past cases to discuss.
Mr. Seaverns explained that he would like this Board to know why any ZBA case is approved, what was with that case that made it unique from all the other scenarios in Town. He noted it was because this Board is the one that writes the ordinances and they need to know when and why something may not be working.
An example of Nottingham Zoning Ordinances, Article VI, Section A was given as an example that may need to be changed from one paragraph to bulleted items, so that an applicant can ask for the bullets that apply to their case without being granted additional things that perhaps didn’t need or ask for. Mr. Seaverns would like the ZBA to write a letter to the Planning Board every time a case is approved; explaining why it was approved and suggestions on how to fix the ordinance. Ms. Chauvey noted Mrs. Sears is now notifying this Board now that Article VI, Section A needs to be changed to bulleted items. Mr. Seaverns wanted Mrs. Sears to send the Planning Board a letter explaining that.
Mr. Netishen noted the ZBA may be able to suggest things like this ordinance is too broad or that one is too tight. Mr. Seaverns suggested that most ZBA cases are due to a failure in our ordinances. He stated that our ordinances are supposed to reflect the Master Plan, but they currently don’t. Mr. Netishen suggested that a group get together to work on this issue (updating the Master Plan).
Chair Smith noted that there doesn’t need to be a joint meeting to do this, that work on the Master Plan is open to the public. He noted that the Master Plan was done from the Community Profile Project completed a few years back.
Ms. Chauvey suggested making some sort of ordinance or putting it on the Zoning Board of Appeals Application that you must have a denial from the Building Inspector, or the Planning Board or Board of Selectmen, before you can go before the ZBA.. She noted that if an applicant has not been denied anything then there is nothing to “appeal”.
Chair Smith explained the current Planning Board process. Ms. Chauvey stated she believes that the Town can say that you have to be denied something before they could go before the ZBA. She urged the rest of the Board to consider conditional approvals only for Zoning Board issues. Discussion continued on the old and new Planning Board process and the new State laws, and the role of the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Mr. Seaverns stated that it was difficult to follow up with any conditional approvals. He noted that they currently don’t put deadlines on approvals either.
Mr. Netishen suggested sending a letter back to the ZBA. The Board would like the letter to ask them to meet on suggestions they might have on the Zoning Ordinances; whichever ones they feel are needed to be addressed. The Board would also like the letter to ask the ZBA what agenda items and time table they would like to discuss. Chair Smith and Mr. Netishen would like one of the possible agenda items be communication/ process between the two groups.
Review of the proposed Conservation Overlay District (COD)
The Board continued to review the section “E minimum standards” They discussed the math and also agreed that Mr. Seaverns would come back to the Board with possible wording that included percentages of land that will go into conservation for each the areas. The Board would also like to have a professional come to discuss the “math” of this section. Mr. Netishen was concerned with “how do we want our town to look” with these proposed lot sizes. Mr. Gylfphe was concerned with house sizes on lot sizes. Discussion continued on the history of cluster developments; the pros and cons, and brief review of previous cluster development ordinances (1996).
The Board will review for homework The Yield Sheet and suggest percentage amounts for the Conservation Overlay District, but keep the yields in subdivision regulations but have wording in this zoning ordinances section. Mr. Seaverns noted then, those items could be waived, and that would set a president. He was not sure they should do that. The Board discussed the budget and if there was money available to have a consultant help them with this Yield & Minimum Dimensions sections. The Board will work on this section and suggested wording for homework.
Consult with Counsel
Chair Smith has made a consultation meeting for Planning Board members with counsel at 7pm before the next workshop meeting next Wednesday, July 30th. Mrs. Sears noted that this is not a meeting, per RSA and that she will not need to attend and take minutes.
Mrs. Sears’ time on meeting nights
Chair Smith citing recent meetings, suggested that Mrs. Sears should be paid a minimum amount on the meeting nights that she attends and then there is no quorum. The Board agreed to have her write a letter to the Board of Selectmen suggesting that Mrs. Sears get a 2-3 hour minimum on those occasions. Ms. Chauvey agreed but noted that we need to be careful what we spend.
Impact fee study costs
Ms. Chauvey asked the Board about possibly having the Planning Board fund research to find money to do the study needed in order to work on the impact fees for a warrant article for March 2009. She explained that she has looked for grants and other ways to fund it but hasn’t been able to find any other money.
The estimated costs for the study are $12-15,000. There was much discussion on impact fees. Ms. Chauvey noted that there is going to be an addition to the school very soon and that cost will be on the taxpayer. She believes that this is a way to help ease that cost. The Board would like her to do more research and gather a subcommittee to work on this issue and come back to the Board with recommendations.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:55pm.
SECOND by Mr. Netishen
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The next schedule workshop meeting is on July 30, 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.
| 
