NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
October 1, 2008
APPROVED & AMMENDED
Type of Meeting: Regularly Scheduled
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. Scott Canney, Ms. Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member, Robert “Buzz” Davies: Alternate Member, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member (not seated for all of the meeting)
Members Absent: Bob Davidson, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative, Ms. Sue Mooney
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Ann & Norman Rathe, Cynthia Copeland, Executive Director, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at approximately 7:07 pm.
New Beginnings Green Houses, 174 Old Turnpike Road-TM3 Lot 4-1, Discussion on a need for a site plan review/business expansion.
It was explained that the owners of New Beginnings Greenhouses: Ann & Norman Rathe have an existing business, that has not under gone a site plan review or home occupation in the past, now wants to expand their business. They are in the commercial zone but do reside there as well.
They have a silent partner who as purchased the land adjacent to theirs; TM3 Lot 4-2 that will be for an additional 34’ x 100’ greenhouse (gutter connect construction). The structure is considered to be temporary and will be on the lot next door with only a well on it, no septic system. Mrs. Sears noted that the Rathes had requested a building permit for the new green house on the adjacent lot and were told that this was an expansion of the business and would need a site plan review. Mrs. Sears noted that she would like to have the Boards input for this case.
Mr. Rathe added that he was just doing the leg work for the owner of Lot 4-2, their silent partner and it was that partner who was going to be applying for the permit not them. There will be no cement floor for the new greenhouse, just cement postings.
Mr. Gylfphe asked about the percentage of products that are grown on their property. He noted that this could be considered zoned for farm/agriculture. Ms. Smith noted it was a farm with a retail stand.
Point of Order: Ms. Smith was seated for Ms. Mooney. Mr. Davies was seated for the vacant seat.
It was that Lot 4-2 is vacant and has no structures, on it. Mr. Rathe noted he will have to put a well in, but no septic. Chair Smith noted that it could fall under commercial/retail, agriculture/farm or home occupation (major). He noted that at this time we do not have a site plan for the current operation.
Ms. Copeland suggested that it should be a site plan review; due to it’s location on Route 4, a state road. Chair Smith noted that this business has gone on to this point and is now looking to expand then the current business should have a site plan review done. It was noted that a site plan review requires a survey and has a lot of regulations.
Chair Smith then noted that they are in a commercial zone and agricultural and they have no employees. He suggested that they could be considered a major home occupation. Chair Smith noted that there are businesses along the same road that have only a home occupation as well. Signage was briefly discussed, noting that they currently have a temporary sign that was granted by the Board of Selectmen (BOS). Chair Smith noted that he wanted to keep it simple for this small business, not requiring a survey of the land.
Discussion was on the original lot, that two of these lots which were originally subdivided from one lot (4-1, 4-2, 4-2-1). It was noted that plans/plat should be on file in the office and with the registry of deeds. Mr. Rathe noted that the new greenhouse would mostly be for display and sell things out of. He noted the other greenhouses and parking area he has are on his property.
Mr. Canney agreed with Chair Smith that this should be kept simple with no survey required. Mr. Rathe noted that it is seasonal business from May through December. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he believes it to be agricultural and therefore does not need a full survey/site plan review. Chair Smith noted a similar Home Occupation case for Chris Smith on Route 152.
Mr. Davies added that it was two separate parcels. The Board agreed noting it has no septic, but it just has to meet the setbacks for the new greenhouse, on that lot. Mr. Rathe noted he doesn’t store fertilizer, he purchases it as it needs it.
Chair Smith noted that even though there would be no additional employees that he believes this is a major home occupation. Ms. Smith noted that if the home occupation was approved then they could put up a sign, per the zoning ordinances. Mr. Rathe noted that they have a temporary sign up now that was granted by the BOS.
MOTION by Mr. Smith that this project for New Beginnings Greenhouses, 174 Old Turnpike Road, TM3 Lot 4-1 is required to go through a Major Home Occupation
SECOND by Mr. Canny
VOTE 5-Aye. 0 Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Chair Smith noted that even though there is no survey required they will need a plan of sort that shows were all the structures, distances, setbacks, etc. Mrs. Sears will contact them with the required paper work/fee schedule.
Cynthia Copeland, Executive Director, Strafford Regional Planning Commission-Discussion on the Conservation Overlay District (COD)
Chair Smith explained that the Board was looking for something more simply and to the point than what they currently have.
Mr. Gylfphe suggested that they take a 5 acre piece of property and allow 3 one acre housing units to mix the workforce housing into this COD. Ms. Smith suggested that it would complicate this too much and it was already difficult to get finished.
Ms. Copeland noted that she has already spoken with Charlie Brown, Town Administrator about this issue. She noted that it was best to try to build a consensus on this process and therefore reducing the misinformation, and agreement on who is doing what and by what dates. She noted that they have enough funding to carry this through. She suggested that we keep the workforce housing out of this and that it is almost completed. She noted that it was important for the other Boards to hear and have some kind agreement on this project.
Ms. Smith reviewed the Conservation and Planning Board’s history of the project. She also noted that this Board has a sitting member from the BOS. She suggested that it was that member’s duty to inform the other BOS members. The Zoning Board has not been involved at this point. Mrs. Sears noted those there as little as 2 meetings and as many as 6 meetings left in the year to finish this project before the deadlines for the required public hearings on this in January.
The Board felt that if they could review the new document before a meeting then they could finish it in one meeting. Mrs. Sears noted that at previous meetings the Board has said they wanted Nottingham’s document to look much more like Durham’s and it doesn’t look like that now. She also noted that at previous meetings the Board has wanted professional input on the yield section.
Discussion was on the yields and lot sizes. Ms. Smith noted it may be a good option and more affordable to have conservation land with smaller lot sizes. She also acknowledged there are residents who would like to increase the minimum lot size to 5 acres. It was noted that it was the residents that must approve this and the developers must buy into this concept as well. Ms. Copeland noted that she believes there is a general sense, in Nottingham, of a concern and value of conservation land. Ms. Smith agreed, noting that the Town has passed the Four Generals Greenway, Mulligan Forest, and changing the 100% Land Use Change Tax that goes into the Conservation Commission, and they supported putting money into the Planning Board Budget for the planner for this project, at last year’s town meeting. She explained the
positive feedback for this COD that they <Conservation Commission> had received at Nottingham Day.
Discussion continued on having this COD be mandatory or optional and the different combinations of this and whether of not to give some kind of bonus to certain areas. It was noted that there was some issues with residents possibly wanting to do this but they had fallen in the white area, which wasn’t allowed last year.
Ms. Copeland explained that was because there was scientific data that put together to protect specific resources. Ms. Smith noted that was explained last year.
Ms. Copeland explained that the one lot allowances would be allowed only in the core areas because it is such a high value of conservation land. She suggested even going to a half an acre.
Chair Smith noted that the Board had discussed raising it to 1.5 acres or 2. Discussion continued on setbacks, common septic, common spaces and lot sizes. Ms. Copeland commented that these discussions are still at the fundamental stages.
Point of Order: Ms. Chauvey was seated for Mr. Davidson during this discussion.
Ms. Chauvey asked about changes that she believed made last year. She asked if it applied to 3 lots or greater and what percentage must go into conservation. Again discussion was on if certain areas or the whole district should be made mandatory and how much of the land should be put in to conservation.
Ms. Copeland noted the Town could be open for liability if someone came and sited all the scientific studies that support this preservation and the town only says “may” in the wording of this COD, and doesn’t make it mandatory, that the could say the Town wasn’t acting in the public good. Ms. Chauvey noted that she believes any wording that makes this mandatory will not pass at Town vote. She thought it best to start with this as a “foot in the door”. Mr. Canney and Chair Smith agreed. Mr. Canney added that is why they wanted to add some kind of incentive/ bonus as well. Mr. Gylfphe noted that most residents would opt for a conservation subdivision over another choice.
Discussion was on how many land owners and how many acres are affected by this directly. Ms. Smith noted that the Conservation Commission has that information. She noted that personal calls were made to the affected land owners and most were supportive. She added that the most resistance at last year’s town meeting was from landowners not on that list. She also noted there was a lot of miss information out there last year.
Chair Smith noted they have been discussing this all year and haven’t had much public input.
Ms. Copeland expressed concern that if what you’re saying is confusing, and then you’re leaving the Town open to go to court. Ms. Chauvey asked what kind of risk by making not making this mandatory. Ms. Copeland stated that saying one thing is of value then it must be given priority.
Ms. Chauvey warned that it probably would not pass if made mandatory. Ms. Copeland gave samples of other towns, and their minimums. The Board discussion continued on lot sizes, and the need for wetlands and uplands for a quality conservation land.
Ms. Copeland told the Board that New Durham is very similar to Nottingham. She noted that she will need the Board to make decisions quickly or there will not be enough time to accomplish this. Ms. Smith suggested making only the core (purple) areas mandatory, but the supporting areas (yellow) optional with bonuses and possible but no bonus for the other areas (white). Ms. Copeland suggested giving bonuses for the local conservation priority areas like the four generals’ greenway. Ms. Copeland will add them to the map as well.
Ms. Copeland agreed that the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) portion of this COD needs to be done for the January public hearings. Chair Smith noted that the matching Subdivision Regulations must be completed with it. The Board noted that the ZO were done except the yields. Ms. Copeland noted that this 1 acre minimum for the COD gives them double what they could get with the standard subdivision plan. Chair Smith noted that they would require a build out plan.
Ms. Copeland suggested adding to the minimum “subject to the following”. The Board agreed. She again suggested the Board review New Durham’s. Chair Smith noted that they wanted to include the possibility of multi family housing. Again discussion was on what % should go into conservation land. Ms. Copeland stated that she would spend no more than 20 hours on this project, noting she has to be fair and equitable with her time.
Chair Smith suggested that the Board meet for a longer session then this in order to complete it. They decided to see how the next workshop, next week, goes then decide. Discussion was again on the percentage for the core area. Mr. Davies suggested that the Board review before next week’s meeting.
Workforce Housing (HB 1472)
Ms. Copeland briefly reviewed the tight deadlines in this new law. She noted it requires that each town has to have 50.5% available for workforce housing. She suggested that the Board should be doing their due diligence on this issue. The Board should be working toward the July 2009 deadline and should be able to show that it has by forming a record of everything the Board does on this issue. She added that builders could potentially have lots of leeway if they don’t. Studies won’t be required unless your Zoning is in place. She noted that SRPC is working on getting all the members a DVD of the recent presentation on this issue. Mrs. Sears will provide her with an updated member list. It was noted that the presentations on this issue are very important for all members to attend.
Ms. Copeland noted that it will be difficult for some towns to meet the 50.5% and make it work She briefly discussed inclusionary zoning.
Impact Fees
Ms. Chauvey explained that since the last time she had appeared before this Board, that she has found people interested in forming a committee as previously suggested. She also noted that she had been told by other towns that have impact fees that it was not wise to do your own study. It would leave the Town open for liability and it must be done by a professional. The estimated cost is $15,000. She would like the Board to put a warrant article on this year’s ballot asking the Town for the cost. There was a brief discussion on what an impact fee was and what it could cover. Ms. Chauvey noted that she believes it should be for increased school and recreation department costs. She also noted that this is a two year process; including the study.
They briefly discussed the budget and noted it could not be used for the study. Discussion was on recent information that shows that the school expansion is limited but is needed.
It was suggested that she presents this as a petition warrant article. The rules of how a petition warrant article can change at town meeting may be better for the timing of this issue than putting this on as a regular warrant article or in the department budget. It was also noted that before Town Meeting, he group go to all relevant committees in Town asking for a vote in support of this petition warrant article. Ms. Chauvey has noted that the Town is growing and there is a strong need for this. It was noted that impact fees will reduce the cost to taxpayers for any increases needed due to large increases in development in the future.
Chair Smith will ask the Town Administrator to use the existing funds for this in order to save one year’s time. If the answer is no, Ms. Chauvey will pursue it as a petition warrant article.
Their was discussion on starting workshop meetings early in order to get more work done.
Review of Previous Minutes
The Board reviewed the following sets of minutes:
Dec. 19, 2007
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to approve these minutes as written
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 3-Aye. 0 Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED
September 17, 2008
Line 39 & 45 & 60 & 131add the e in Canney
Line 75 Discuss should be Discussion
Line 76 delete They discussed.
Line 174 change Ms. to Mr.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to approve these minutes as amended
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 4-Aye. 0 Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Davidson to adjourn.
SECOND by Mr. Canney
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.
| 
