NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
October 8, 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. Scott Canney, Bob Davidson, Ms. Sue Mooney, Robert “Buzz” Davies: Alternate Member, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member
Members Absent: Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative, Ms. Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member,
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Cynthia Copeland, Executive Director, Strafford Regional Planning Commission, Skip Seaverns
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 pm.
Ms. Chauvey was seated for Mr. Gylfphe. Mr. Davies was seated for the vacant seat.
Cynthia Copeland, Executive Director, Strafford Regional Planning Commission-Discussion on the Conservation Overlay District (COD)
Ms. Copeland returned to the Board to present her recommendations for the COD from last weeks direction from the Board. She also brought an updated map. Ms. Copeland had sent the Board members New Durham’s COD for review this past week. She began the review of the document and the map including the core areas and the purpose, and overall density. She noted that New Durham also has an open space ordinance, noting that is what residents in Nottingham, in the white area from the old map, yellow in tonight’s new map, would use.
Discussion was on the Requirements and Permitted Uses, Dimensional Requirements, the Fragment Shapes diagram under the Performance Standards in detail. (The working document is attached.) It was noted that about 48% of the Town is the core area. She briefly explained the new State law requiring over 50% of the Town’s residential zoning be available for workforce housing. She recommended that workforce housing may have to be allowed in all zones (inclusionary zoning). Ms. Copeland noted that this Board has put a lot of work into this COD and should not be concerned too much with workforce housing yet. She noted that this work on the COD started before the workforce house issue and they have a track record of that work.
It was noted that the State park should be removed from the working figures for those workforce housing requirements. The different Zoning areas of the Town were briefly discussed. Ms. Mooney noted that the four general’s greenway is a concept and not a location.
Ms. Chauvey asked that the Board hold off on discussion of the details of the plan until the Board discusses and votes on whether or not to make this mandatory or not. Ms. Chauvey wanted input from other board members. She explained that she believes it was agreed upon last year at the public hearings not to make this mandatory. She made it clear she was not opposed to conservation, she was concerned with making it mandatory for any/all of the areas. She wanted to present it as an opportunity for development, not a requirement. She suggested that other suggestions can be made to the residents for them to vote on but for now they should present it as an option. Mr. Davidson agreed it should not be mandatory but an ongoing process. It was noted that most of the residents in the core area were consulted last year and were in
favor of this, but it was the whole town that would have to vote in favor of this. It was the sense of the Board that they agreed to not to make this mandatory.
It was noted that Nottingham will now need an open space ordinance to go with the COD. The concepts of bonuses were discussed again. Ms. Copeland noted in this current version the bonus is less density. Mr. Canney discussed an incentive of a possible extra lot for developers if they choose this. He noted this had been discussed before.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to move forward on just an open space subdivision ordinance, not make anything mandatory, for this year.
Mr. Seaverns proposed that there be broader concept of an alternate subdivision plan and under that there could be ordinances for: open space, conservation, recreation, etc. Possibly offer bonuses to certain ones like the conservation one.
SECOND by Mr. Davidson
Mr. Davidson noted that he didn’t want the same product as last year and that will get defeated again, after working on it all year. He wanted to take this in “baby steps.”
Mr. Canney noted that there has been a lot of work, by this Board and the Conservation Commission in on these documents (COD) and he didn’t want to change gears and drop this, since it was almost complete.
Chair Smith stated his impression of this document that has been worked on all summer was that it was not going to be mandatory, and it could be used by the whole town. Ms. Mooney said she sees this as an education for the town, that these areas are important and they have the town adopt it. She wanted bonuses for high value areas. Mr. Davidson wanted to encourage this COD but not force residents to do this. Mr. Davies asked if the Open Space ordinance is necessary. Mr. Seaverns noted it gives the details of what it should look like (the roads, etc).
Ms. Copeland noted that the COD calls out exceptional land areas. Mr. Canney wanted those areas would receive bonuses. It was explained that there needs to be 5 documents to make the COD work, as written now. They are:
An Open Space Subdivision (OSS) Regulations (needs to be completed)
A Conservation Focus Areas Overlay District Subdivision Ordinance (CFAOD, previously referred to as the Conservation Overlay District or COD), with matching Conservation Focus Areas Overlay District Zoning Ordinance (these are what the Board has been working on since March ‘08)
Conservation Focus Areas Overlay District Map, with both Open Space and CFAOD areas noted on it. (Completed but may need updates)
It was noted that the OSS was needed last year, and Ms. Chauvey said that residents wanted to see it there. The “white area” on last year’s map needs to be a separate document called the OSS.
Ms. Copeland noted that a lot of this work is completed, the hardest parts are base density, lot dimensions, mandatory or optional, and what to give for incentives/bonuses. The Board agreed to resolve these issues tonight in order to be able to move forward and finish these documents in time to present to the voters this year. Ms. Copeland noted the Board will need about 3 more meetings to complete all this work.
Ms. Chauvey withdrew her motion. Mr. Davidson withdrew his second.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to move forward with an open space ordinance, conservation focus area overlay district zoning ordinance (non mandatory) with matching subdivisions regulations and the map that goes with it.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The Board discussed their workshops schedule in order to complete this work. It was noted that the Oct. 29th meeting was available if the LGC conference was not attended. The Longeuil case would need to be opened, by the Board with alternates, and accept the applicant’s withdrawal, but the Board could work after that.
The Board agreed to not go to the LGC conference on Oct. 29th so they can have a workshop to continue this work. Ms. Copeland will be at all of the LGC lectures and cannot attend put will provide documents for the Board to work on in her absence. She will highlight the areas that the Board needs to make decisions on.
The discussion was on Performance Standards; lot shapes and sizes section, again. It was agreed to remove the diagram as it is too confusing. It was also noted that there was no way to chart all the possible shapes of lots. It was also noted that applicants will be required to go to the Conservation Commission before coming before this Board. Critical areas of a parcel will be noted for this when it is and isn’t appropriate to use this ordinance.
Ms. Chauvey questioned the minimum dimensions. Mr. Canney mentioned common septics, and common wells as possible solutions. Mr. Canney believes this was already discussed. Ms. Chauvey wanted the Board to decide if it was going to allow septics in the common land. Ms. Mooney noted these types of details would come later in the subdivision regulations.
Ms. Chauvey wanted to make sure that if these minimums were allowed then the Subdivision Regulations would have to allow community septic/wells, when the Board gets to those documents. Mr. Seaverns pointed out that is why it is important that the matching Subdivision Regulations are completed when this Zoning Ordinance is accepted.
Mr. Seaverns wanted all the “may”s be changed to “shall”s in the Dimensional Requirements section. Ms. Copeland explained the most important part of this section is for the Board to decide the number of acres per dwelling unit. The Board agreed to one dwelling acre per 5 acre lot. They also agreed to have this COD applies to more than 4 parcels or more. The lesser acre amounts are difficult to monitor the conservation land on.
Discussion was on lots per acres and the amounts of land needed to go into conservation in the different areas. It was also noted that there is no wording for the conservation easements and monitoring or deed restrictions.
Ms. Copeland also suggested having this apply to site plan reviews as well. Mr. Searvens suggested adding the word “major” to subdivisions that total 20 acres or more (section D. 1.)
Examples of hypothetical site plan review situations were discussed. Discussion continued on the wording of this section. Ms. Copeland will make it into two sections for the Boards review for better understanding. They also reviewed other wording and formatting changes. Ms. Copeland agreed.
Chair Smith questioned if the lot lines would go to the end of the parcel or to the buffer, examples were discussed. Buffers were also discussed. He wanted these issues clear in the documents; he noted that he saw it was spelled out in a different town’s documents. The Board discussed different situations and scenarios. Ms. Copeland asked for input on the map. The Board reviewed the map.
2009 Zoning Ordinances
Mrs. Sears will type up the proposed changes for the Board’s review and the attorney’s review, in the next few weeks.
Budget
Chair Smith noted he didn’t speak with Mr. Brown. The Board would like to ask the Board of Selectmen to allow them to spend the money in the budget for the impact fee study. Ms. Chauvey will get quote to Mrs. Sears, first.
Review of Previous Minutes
The Board tabled the review of the minutes
Workshop Schedule
After Mr. Davidson, Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Smith and Ms. Mooney had left the meeting, the remaining members agreed to cancel all of the lectures in order to finish this COD. Mrs. Sears will cancel the lectures, and ask the missing members if they would like to cancel their lectures as well. The Board will now keep their November 12th meeting as well.
MOTION by Mr. Canney to adjourn.
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 4-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.
| 
