NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
September 24, 2008
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED & AMMENDED
Type of Meeting: Scheduled
Method of Notification: Posted at the Nottingham Municipal Building & Nottingham Post Office
Meeting Location: Nottingham Municipal Building
Members Present: Bob Davidson, Mr. Scott Canney, Ms. Cheryl Smith; Gail Mills, Scott Curry; Acting Vice Chair, Earle Rourke; Acting Chair
Members Absent: Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair, Ms. Sue Mooney, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member, Robert “Buzz” Davies: Alternate Member, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative,
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Mr. Dave Smith; Chair, Roscoe Blaisdell; Land Surveyor, Paul & Leslie Longueil, Richard Wolf, Northwood Resident, Nikki Roy; Chair of Northwood Planning Board, Roger LeClerc; Northwood Planning Board
Chair Rourke called the meeting to order at approximately 7:03 pm.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of last meeting in which this Board was in attendance.
August 20, 2008 (at the portion were these new members were seated)
The Board made the following changes:
Line 80 insert he after that
Line 119 remove made a motion and add to
Line 157 remove but
Line 158 insert after the sentence that ends in ZBA. Ms. Smith asked the percent of total parent parcel that is poorly or very poorly drained. Mr. Blaisdell replied greater than 50%.
Line 203 the second Boldt should be Teague
MOTION by Mr. Curry to approve their portion of the August 20h minutes as amended
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Ms. Smith to adjorn this meeting no later than 10pm tonight.
SECOND by Ms. Mills
VOTE 6-Aye. 1- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Curry proposed a discussion on the procedure for the night. He wanted to only keep to the planning issues for tonight, but if possible to not discuss and legal issues. He wanted to have legal issue to be table so that attorneys can be consulted, if needed. He gave examples of what he meant. Ms. Smith did not agree. She noted that would be difficult for the normal flow of things. She agreed we can bring legal issues up but just not take a vote on any of them yet.
Mr. Canney noted that if members felt there was going to be legal issues then they should have requested that the attorneys be present. He noted that he did see any legal issues for Nottingham. He agreed that there may be a new issue for Northwood that had recently come up.
Mr. Curry noted the applicant deserves a speedy process and that he takes RSA 91:A very seriously and the only option he has was to make his opinion known at a public hearing, tonight. He wanted to make sure the process is fair. Ms. Smith noted that this really is a new case for before this Board. Mr. Davies asked how the ZBA decision plays into this case. Ms. Smith and Mr. Curry noted that they must follow the ZBA decision.
Public Meeting Continuance – Subdivision Application (acceptance, compliance, and final approval of a 3-lot subdivision) – Paul & Leslie Longueil Revocable Trust of 1996, Paul & Leslie Longueil, Trustees – Cooper Hill Road – Map 16 Lot 15A – Case #P07-15-SUB.
Chair Rourke asked Mrs. Sears read two letters recently received.(see file) The first letter is from Northwood’s Building Inspector dated September 8, 2008 requesting to review the most recent plans. Mrs. Sears noted that he did come in and reviewed the plans and file.
The second letter Mrs. Sears read for the record was dated September 15, 2008 from Linda Smith, Board Administrator for the Town of Northwood in which she address the following concerns: the access of a driveway that is through a Northwood driveway (private), RSA 674:41 not granting a building permit for building on private way, the regional impact statue and proper notification of that statue, wetlands crossings and the permits that may be needed.
Ms. Nikki Roy, Chair, Northwood Planning Board noted that there were 2 members of Northwood Planning Board present. Mr. Curry noted that these types of issues are usually covered in the review process once the application was accepted as complete. He asked the other board members if they wanted to review the application to see if it was complete before taking on these issues. Ms. Roy noted RSA 36:54 if Nottingham agrees that this case has regional impact then they must notify the Town of Northwood and the Stratford Regional Planning Commission as well as others. Mr. Curry noted that it was this Board must determine that if it is of regional impact. Ms Smith noted that the SRPC has been involved in this case and has done a completeness review on it. Ms. Smith noted there may be issues with the Northwood access that has to
be discussed with counsel. Mrs. Sears read the receipts from the file that showed that the Town of Northwood had been notified; the Town Clerks’ Office, the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen.
Discussion was on what the ZBA decision was on. Chair Rourke noted that Northwood was notified. Mr. Longueil noted that the plan that the Northwood inspector had seen was basically the same as the one they are currently using. Ms. Roy noted that in no way does the Northwood Building Inspector’s opinion reflect the opinion of the Northwood Planning Board.
Mr. Longueil noted that he did go through the Northwood Planning Board and that they had told him that because the land was in Nottingham that they had no concerns. He will provide copies of those meeting minutes to this Board.
Mr. Curry reminded everyone that if Northwood Planning Board members were allowed to speak tonight then all members of the public should be allowed to speak. He noted that this Board should not be doing that until we have accepted the application as complete and we have not done that yet. Ms. Smith agreed. Chair Rourke wanted to make sure all the members of the public were allowed to speak tonight, before the applicant is accepted. He noted that he has never closed any members of the public out when he was a past chair of this Board. Mr. Curry concured noting he was on that Board with Mr. Rourke but he noted that now the procedure/process has changed.
Chair Rourke noted for this hearing he would like any affected members of the public speak. Mr. Longueil read the minutes from the Northwood Planning Board on July 12th (2007?) (draft copy) that he states is the same plan as this one and that the Northwood Planning Board concluded that RSA 674:41 does not apply since the structure and land is in Nottingham. The discussion was on were the driveway location was, then and now. Mr. Blaisdell asked that the hearing be open so that he may address all these concerns. He noted that they had reduced the number of driveways which has reduced the impact to Northwood.
Chair Rourke noted that there may be increased traffic in Northwood but also noted that all of these are going to be single family homes, and only one more home would come out into Northwood.
Ms. Smith asked if this plan was the same one that Northwood had reviewed, she noted that there was Plan #1124 LLA, January 1, 2002. Mr. Rosco explained that they used the plan with a previous Lot Line Adjustment as the basis for this new plan but they were essentially the same. He noted then once they had received approval from them they polished up the plan with a new date, etc.
Ms. Roy, again stated Mr. Hickey’s letter (Northwood Building Inspector) as of July doesn’t represent any opinion of the Northwood Planning Board. She noted that Mr. Longueil came to them as a pilionary consultation and that nothing said in that consultation is binding. She also noted that she could not be sure if that plan and this one were the same. She noted the only thing Mr. Longueil was told was the RSA 674:41 was not Northwood’s issue. No other details of his plan were considered because it was not an actual application before them.
Mr. Curry noted that he would like this Board to consider if this case is of Regional Impact based on RSA 36:55 (II, III) pg 59-60. He read the RSAs.
MOTION by Mr Curry that this case has Regional Impact under RSA 36:55 (II) (III)
SECOND by Ms. Smith
He explained it was to allow Northwood formal voice in the matter, and that they had already been notified.
Mr. Davies asked about conditional approvals. Mr. Curry explained it had not been done in recent years but he was willing to do them.
VOTE 6-Aye. 1- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Canney was opposed. Mrs. Sears will have to formally notify SRPC and any other requirements stated in the RSA.
Chair Rourke asked the Northwood Planning Board if they had an issue with the original bridge/wetlands crossing when they allowed Mr. Longueil’s home originally. Ms. Roy noted she could not speak to that as she was not a member back then. Mr. Longueil noted that in 1983 when the home was built there was no DES approval for the wetlands crossing/culvert. Mr. Blaisdell noted it was an old farm road that already existed. Mr. Longueil noted that it was a free flowing stream they drove over then he added the culvert then the bridge at a later time when they built their home.
Dave Smith noted that by calling this case one with Regional Impact that expands the abutters list, including one that has not been notified: SRPC. He agreed that they had seen some old plans but believes they still need to be formally notified. Mr. Le Clerc explained that a Mr. Ray, owner of Cooper Hill Pizzeria had not been notified of this hearing. Mr. Ray’s property is in both Towns but doesn’t directly abut Mr. Longueil’s parent parcel with the proposed subdivision on it. Mr. Rays’ property was not noted on the plans.
Discussion was on weather this lot and possibly any others along Rte. 4 were or were not abutters and whether the fact that the end of the shared driveway is effectively now the end of this subdivision so any abutter to the end of that driveway should be notified. Ms. Smith wanted to consult an attorney for this issue. She noted it could be the town attorney or Local Government Center (LGC). Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Longueil supply a new abutters list. Mr. Blaisdell noted that if that means this meeting tonight can not proceed then he would like to have the attorneys present at all of the next meetings then.
MOTION by Mr Curry that an unapproved shared driveway is related to abutters, and that this case proceed forward with the abutters as of tonight’s hearing.
SECOND by Mr. Canney
Chair Rourke believes that this Board and the ZBA should have notified this abutter across from Mr. Longueil’s existing driveway. Mr. Longueil noted that he did not need to consult an attorney if they wanted him to notify an additional abutter then he would. Mr. Smith read the RSA 662:3 that defines who an abutter is (pg 363). Mr. Blaisdell agued that this new abutter has to demonstrate that he is directly effected by this proposal and he is not hear tonight. It was noted that Mr. Ray was not formally notified.
Mr. Curry noted he didn’t want to submit to attorneys every little thing. He noted his opinion was that the role of this Board was to understand the RSA’s, take facts; we decide how to apply the law. He again disagreed that this new abutter was in fact an abutter. Chair Rourke noted that per the ZBA decision, this owner was an abutter.
VOTE 3-Aye. 4- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Ms. Roy noted that SRPC must be formally notified as well.
Discussion was on if they should proceed with tonight’s meeting or not. Mr. Longueil will provide a updated abutters list. Discussion was on whether or not this case was a continuance. Mr. Davidson noted that at the meeting on August 20th had been a noticed as a continuance. The Board said that there is no need for new ad, only notify the new abutter(s).
[NOTE: there wasn’t a copy of the Northwood Tax Map to determine exactly who abuts that driveway.]
MOTION by Ms. Mills to recess this case until October 29, 2009
SECOND by Ms. Smith
The Board and the applicant continued the discussion on a new date to recess to.
VOTE 4-Aye. 3- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Blaisdell would like to have copies of the letters read in the beginning of the meeting.
Ms. Roy will provide copies of the approved Northwood Planning Board minutes that Mr. Longueil referred to, for this Board.
Ms. Smith suggested that all outstanding issues raised by the SRPC planner’s completeness review, that could be taken care, be taken care of before the next meeting are. Mr. Blaisdell agreed.
Mr. Wolf asked about access and roads on the plans. Mr. Curry didn’t want to discuss the case any further since it had been recessed. Mr. Curry told Chair Rourke that there was no procedure here. He felt it wasn’t fair to the applicant and the public and that is how this case had gotten in trouble with the last (Planning) Board. Chair Rourke again stated that he felt members of the public could speak.
Point of Order: Mr. Curry left in protest before the vote to adjourn.
MOTION by Mr. Davidson to adjourn this meeting.
SECOND by Ms. Mills
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
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.
| 
