NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
October 22, 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, Robert “Buzz” Davies: Alternate Member, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member
Members Absent: Ms. Sue Mooney, Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative, Ms. Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member, Bob Davidson
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Deb Stevens; Nottingham Conservation Commission
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at approximately 7:11 pm.
Ms. Chauvey was seated for Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davies was seated for the vacant seat.
Review of Previous Minutes
October 1, 2008
Line 45 Davis should be Davies
Line 84 Canny should be Canney
Line 197 insert than before this
Line 199 Davis should be Davies
Line 264 Ms. should be Mr.
MOTION by Mr. Canney to approve the minutes of October 1, 2008 as amended
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
October 8, 2008
Line 90 delete ordinance and
Line 101 insert said after Chauvey
MOTION by Mr. Canney to approve the minutes of October 8, 2008 as amended
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
October 15, 2008
Line 45 delete was
MOTION by Mr. Canney to approve the minutes of October 15, 2008 as amended
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Continued Discussion on the Conservation Overlay District (COD)
The Board reviewed the latest version of the COD, now being called Conservation Focus Areas Overlay District (CHAOD). Discussions were on:
G. Dimensional Requirements
Mr. Davies had questions left over from last week; who decides the amount of the percentage of land that falls in the COD, on a particular parcel. The Board believed it was on the applicant and the surveyor would determine that and note it on the plat. They discussed how it would be determined on the COD maps; in great detail for the surveyor to know. The Board agreed to follow up with Ms. Copeland at Stratford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC). They will also ask her if they need any additional wording in the document that notes how it is determined. Chair Smith also noted that the Conservation Commission is probably going to have to be involved in determining these percentages as well.
Mr. Davies also questioned the 3 different levels (currently Section G. 2-5). The Board discussed that the person with 100 percent of the parcel in the COD then he would get to use 30% of that land to develop, as appose to the person with less than 50 percent of the parcel in the COD would only get to use 20% of the land in the COD to develop, because he has other land not in the COD that he can use for development. The Board went on to discuss different examples of this, with other percentages and possible situations. It was also noted that each percentage was what it was LESS infrastructure. Mr. Davies had concerns and proposed having just one percentage for all areas and gives parcels with large amounts in the COD an additional incentive. It was noted that this ordinance was an exchange in a sense; that this
scientifically valued conservation land was so important that this board would allow less stringent density in order to save that land from development.
The Board discussed the proposed percentages and where they came from. They noted that they wanted to know of other towns that have used similar numbers, and if it was working for them. Mr. Canney noted that Ms. Copeland had stated this has worked for New Durham. Mr. Canney also suggested that this Board use a similar Open Space from another town and just adjust it for Nottingham. Ms. Chauvey agreed.
They briefly discussed the enforcement ability of the Conservation Commission and when these maps came out. Ms. Stevens noted that these maps were in existence, it was not created for the Conservation Commission or this concept of the COD. She explained that Mr. Richard Ladd had reviewed similar ordinances from other towns, not discussed here, for the commission to review. The Commission then got SRPC involved in developing this for Nottingham, last year.
The Board went back to the 3 levels on dimensional requirements section vs. one percentage regardless of home much of their parcel is in the Core Area. They discussed if the bonus should be more lots or use of more of the conservation land area (the higher percentage that can be developed in the conservation area). Chair Smith will call New Durham and see how this is working for them.
The Board noted that if they increased the percentage to 35% that should make this work, for the developer, so that he will choose this over a conventional subdivision plan. They noted that at 30% they may not have enough land to put in the same amount of lots as the conventional subdivision and therefore not choose this. It was noted that it would be better to get less land for conservation than no land at all. It was noted again that these percentages do not include infrastructure.
During the discussion, they determined that they would not give incentives of extra lot(s) since they increased the percentage of conservation land that could be developed (from 30%-35%). They wanted to make sure that these numbers and percentages worked out in order to make this ordinance appealing so that the applicants/developers would chose this over a conventional subdivision plan, since this was not mandatory.
Chair Smith noted the applicant should be able to get the same number of lots no matter which one he chooses. Mrs. Sears noted that was not what was discussed in the last few weeks. It was that they may loose lots but they gain the lower costs of less infrastructure; as Ms. Chauvey was concerned with last week.
Mrs. Sears noted that Ms. Copeland had wanted the Board to decide on these major issues in the COD and keep moving forward. She noted that these concepts should not keep changing from week to week, that there were some tight deadlines that have to be met if this is to go to the voters this year. Mr. Canney noted that in his experience he felt that making the percentages, excluding infrastructure should be fair. They continued discussion on the 5 acre density, again.
Section G
They determined, by working out many different percentages on the chalkboard, that they should change the percentages in Section G should change again to:
3. …parcels of 50% to less than 75%...no more than 20%
4. change to …parcels of 75% to less then 90%...no more than 30%
(Insert a NEW) 5. …90% to 100%....no more than 35%
The Board removed Section H, #2. bonuses/incentives. The Board then noted that they did want to have some kind of wording, if possible, that would allow them to save certain things they may not want to see developed, and the authority to negotiate that with a developer. Chair Smith gave an example of a farm field. Mrs. Sears will check with Ms. Copeland to see if that was possible and get wording for it. They didn’t want to put on more restrictions on the developer but did want to be able to work with the developer.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to not discuss this section again as agreed upon tonight. (G. Dimensional Requirements: #1-5, the new #5).
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Davies noted that this COD is going to force all the houses in the front along exisisting roads, and not see the conservation land that we are saving. Mrs. Chauvey agreed, and noted that she would prefer not to see the homes on the road. She gave Dunbarton Estates as an example.
The Board ended its discussion on page 5 during Section H. They agreed to continue discussion next week after the alternate Board accepts the withdrawal of the Longueil case. The Board will review Sections H & G for “homework” and review next week.
MOTION by Mr. Canney to adjourn at 9:45pm.
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.
| 
