NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 2, 2008
PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING
Approved 02/20/08, as amended
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair
Mr. Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen’s Representative
Mr. Scott Canney
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Mary Bonser
Mr. Richard Ladd, RSL Layout & Design
Mr. Sam Demeritt, Conservation Commission
Ms. Deb Stevens, Conservation Commission
Ms. Celia Abrams, Conservation Commission
Ms. Michelle Beauchamp, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Traci Chauvey, Secretary to the Planning Board
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM.
MINUTES
December 5, 2007:
Ms. Chauvey noted that the time of 7:13 PM was missing the colon.
Chair Smith noted two typos on Page 1, “Mr. Davidson mad a motion…,” should be, “Mr. Davidson made a motion…,” and, “…and leech field.” should be, “and leach field.” and one typo on Page 3, “…adding that a prefect square…,” should have been, “…adding that a perfect square….”
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to accept the minutes of the December 5, 2007 meeting, as corrected. Mr. Canney seconded the motion. Mr. Bock abstained from the motion. Motion passed 3-0-1.
December 19, 2007:
Not reviewed.
PUBLIC MEETINGS/HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (compliance and final approval of a 6-lot subdivision) – RSL LAYOUT & DESIGN FOR LITTLE RIVER REALTY TRUST, LUCILLE HOWARD – 375 STAGE ROAD – MAP 17 LOT 25 – CASE #P07-08-SUB.
PUBLIC MEETING – SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (compliance and final approval of a 23-lot subdivision) – RSL LAYOUT & DESIGN FOR LEONARD GILES REVOCABLE TRUST OF 2000 – PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GEBIG ROAD – MAP 17 LOT 31 – CASE #P07-09-SUB.
Chair Smith opened the public hearings at 7:17 PM.
Mr. Ladd was in attendance in representation of Ms. Howard and Mr. Giles. He reviewed the proposed Conservation Overlay District and asked for a continuance of the cases until the second meeting in March.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the hearings of RSL Layout & Design for Little River Realty Trust, Lucille Howard, Trustee, Map 17 Lot 25, Case #P07-08-SUB and RSL Layout & Design for Leonard Giles Revocable Trust of 2000, Map 17 Lot 31, Case #P07-09-SUB until March 19, 2008 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Canney seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Chauvey asked Chair Smith how this case should proceed forward as they have been accepted but because of the possible changes no escrow had been collected and nothing had been sent out to Rockingham County Conservation District. Ms. Beauchamp asked if Mr. Ladd would be willing to renotify abutters. Mr. Ladd stated he would, however, he noted for the record that they would not be asking for any more lots than the original proposal requested. Chair Smith stated that the abutters would need to be renotified because of the significant changes that would be made if the Conservation Overlay District passes Town Vote in March. He further stated that he felt a new application would be the best way to proceed. Ms. Chauvey noted that one of the applicants had paid significant fees for submission of
this application and questioned as to whether they should be charged all over again if they were not going to be changing the number of lots requested. Chair Smith asked Ms. Chauvey to get an invoice together of fees due to this point. Ms. Beauchamp suggested that the Planning Board send the applicant to the Board of Selectmen to have the portion of the application fee related to the lots waived. Mr. Bock felt this was the best way to proceed. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he felt they could just continue the hearing, noting that they would be looking at modified plans. Ms. Beauchamp stated that abutters should be notified if the Planning Board is looking at substantially modified plans. Chair Smith stated that the Board would need to start the completeness process all over on substantially modified plans. Ms. Beauchamp agreed. Ms. Chauvey stated that her experience with the ZBA indicates that the Boards can move forward and approve less
than what the application asks for but never more. She stated that she heard Mr. Ladd say that they would not be coming back with any more proposed Lots than what was originally proposed. Ms. Beauchamp stated that abutters may have come in, saw that it was a conventional subdivision, thought it was no big deal, and would not have any idea that the plan now changed to a cluster for approval. Ms. Chauvey stated that that would be the abutter’s mistake, noting that anything can happen between acceptance and approval and the abutters should follow the case through to the end. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she felt the Town is obligated to renotify abutters when the plan substantially changes. Ms. Chauvey stated that she felt it was the abutters obligation to follow the case through if they had any concerns. Mr. Gylfphe stated that the Law Lecture Series had indicated that it is up to the abutters to follow the case. Ms. Beauchamp stated that
since the plan would change from a conventional subdivision to a cluster, she felt the applicants should be renotified. Ms. Chauvey stated she would contact LGC to ask for a legal opinion. Mr. Ladd stated that if they were going to renotify abutters, the motion to continue until March 19, 2008 would not provide enough time. Chair Smith checked the calendar and confirmed that there would not be enough time for notification.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the hearings of RSL Layout & Design for Little River Realty Trust, Lucille Howard, Trustee, Map 17 Lot 25, Case #P07-08-SUB and RSL Layout & Design for Leonard Giles Revocable Trust of 2000, Map 17 Lot 31, Case #P07-09-SUB until April 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Canney seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Conservation Overlay District Proposal
Chair Smith asked Mr. Ladd if he had any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the Conservation Overlay District proposal. Mr. Ladd stated that he felt the 100’ frontage was not necessary noting that it wastes space, especially around a cul-de-sac. He stated that a purpose of a cluster is to bring everything together to leave more open space and a 100’ frontage requirement will still spread things out more than needed. He stated that 25’ is adequate, noting that he believes it makes more sense to have the average width of the lot be 100’ across, allowing for 25’ in the front and 175’ in the back. Chair Smith confirmed with Mr. Ladd that a one-acre lot that has a 100’ frontage would be 435’ deep. Chair Smith stated he felt going
shorter on the frontage would lengthen the lots and create a pie effect. Mr. Ladd drew on the chalk board to show the Planning Board lot shapes and sizes that could be obtained with the recommendation he was making. Chair Smith stated it would be nice to see a cul-de-sac drawn out to see how the lots fit. Mr. Ladd informed Chair Smith that there is approximately 380’ on a 75’ cul-de-sac. Mr. Gylfphe stated that if they went to 75’ it would allow for four lots. Mr. Ladd stated that he felt they should be able to put five lots around a cul-de-sac, noting that the frontage requirement was spreading out the development. Mr. Canney stated that some towns require a 90’ radius on a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Gylfphe noted that the lot envelope size had been reduced to 40,000 feet. Ms. Beauchamp stated she felt the Board should make it 45K, or at a minimum, 43K, noting that 40K is less than an acre.
Mr. Ladd informed the Board that many towns only require less frontage on a curve, stating that Raymond requires two-thirds of the required 200’ of frontage on an outside curve. Chair Smith thought this was a good idea. He confirmed with Mr. Ladd that it applied to the outside curve of the road only and asked if Raymond has a formula. Mr. Gylfphe stated that he like the idea also. Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp to look into changing the frontage required for outside curves in the road to 66’, two-thirds of the proposed 100’ requirement.
Chair Smith stated that this type of development should make lots more affordable, while still providing the developer with the same number of lots. Ms. Beauchamp stated that there is less infrastructure with this type of a development. Mr. Bock stated that he believed, most importantly, that it was a continuing commitment of part of this community to conserve land and keep Nottingham rural.
Ms. Beauchamp asked if anyone knew why cul-de-sacs had been removed from the ordinances. Chair Smith stated he believed it was removed because size was an issue. At Chair Smith’s inquiry, Ms. Beauchamp stated she had not read the previous cluster subdivision ordinance. Chair Smith stated that most of what the town got for open space was wetlands. Ms. Beauchamp asked if there had been concern over the configuration of lots. Chair Smith stated that he believed there had been concern over the flag shaped lots that had been created. Ms. Beauchamp stated that things must be brought together to make things affordable and to conserve the important lands.
Mr. Bock, noting that surface and groundwater are hot topics in Nottingham at the moment, asked the Conservation Commission to speak to and explain proposed XVII B.2. He directly asked if it pertains in any way to commercial operations. Ms. Stevens stated that she felt proposed XVII B.2 should end after the word “reservoirs.” Everyone present agreed. Ms. Beauchamp, stating she wanted to clarify things, informed everyone that the Conservation Overlay District only applies to residential subdivisions. Ms. Abrams asked if the ordinance states that it only applies to residential districts. Mr. Gylfphe stated it should say that in the purpose. Ms. Beauchamp stated she thought it was in the subdivision regulation. Ms. Abrams asked if that meant that the conservation
subdivision would not apply to a commercial subdivision. Ms. Beauchamp replied that without specifics of what Ms. Abrams was referring to, her answer would be that it does not apply to commercial businesses. Ms. Abrams asked if they have any protection for the land if it is involved in a commercial subdivision. Mr. Demeritt stated that he thought that most of the land in the commercial area that was important to conserve was already in conservation. Chair Smith stated that there are regulations already in place that protect wetlands. Ms. Abrams stated that wetlands are not all that conservation protects. Ms. Beauchamp and the members agreed on the following changes:
XVII B. From: “…for a reasonable level of development by…”
To: “for a reasonable level of residential development by…”
XVII E.1. From: “…to all newly proposed subdivisions of a parent…”
To: “…to all newly proposed residential subdivisions of a parent…”
XVII F. From: “All newly proposed subdivision located in the…”
To: “All newly proposed residential subdivisions located in the …”
Mr. Bock asked if a development abutting a conservation easement would add or detract value from the process. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it adds value to the process. Acknowledging that that there are more requirements, Ms. Beauchamp stated that the conservation subdivision allows more flexibility for the Planning Board to work with the developer to obtain the best location for the subdivision. As an example she stated that a lot that has existing abutting conservation land would be one of the priorities the Planning Board and Conservation Commission would look at when determining where the developable area should be. Mr. Bock stated that it is not inclusive of 50% of the uplands, noting that it does not lend itself credence to the development going in. He stated that it may add persona or
character but it is not a contingent for doing that. He further stated that it does not really exist in the actual process of the application. Ms. Beauchamp stated that there may be something more important on the property to protect than connectivity.
Mr. Bock stated he felt that this ties in with what was done last year in regards to the carbon footprint. Ms. Beauchamp asked if the group who spoke about the carbon footprint has a purpose available to the public. Mr. Bock stated that he thought there were plenty of copies of it around.
Mr. Gylfphe asked Ms. Beauchamp where the information which the Conservation Commission had used to separate and label the areas had come from. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the core area for the supporting landscape was done through the State. Mr. Gylfphe indicated that he did not feel it was accurate. Ms. Beauchamp informed Mr. Gylfphe that the lots he was referring to are not one lot. Mr. Gylfphe stated that they are all owned by the same person. Ms. Beauchamp stated that data was collected on lots 20 acres or larger. Chair Smith asked if the Town of Nottingham has had input on what the State has on file. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the town has added one pink section, a wild life corridor.
Mr. Demeritt stated he thought they would have a better chance of passing the ordinance if the mandatory requirement was removed. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it is possible that the number of lots that can be applied for could be decreased by doing a conservation subdivision because if the land is not good, it just won’t qualify. Ms. Abrams stated that Ms. Mooney is concerned that if the mandatory requirement is removed Nottingham will lose highly valued land. Chair Smith stated that he thought that before they removed the mandatory requirement they would have to sit down and really look at what Nottingham has to protect, without relying on the State data. He further stated that he did not think the mandatory requirement would make a difference to the voters. He thought the biggest argument
would be from people who own more than 20 acres and want to break out a lot for a child. He asked what someone would do if they only wanted to break out a few lots. Ms. Beauchamp stated that 50% of the uplands would need to go into conservation. Chair Smith stated he did not think that would pass. Ms. Beauchamp stated that the ordinance is for the betterment of the town, not individual property owners. Chair Smith stated that that poses a problem when it comes time to be approved. Ms. Beauchamp concurred. Mr. Bock asked if putting land into conservation increases or decreases the value of your property rights. Ms. Beauchamp stated that selling off your rights decreases your property value. Chair Smith stated that he thought developers would like this but again voice concern over the individual property owner. Ms. Chauvey agreed, stating she fully supports conservation, but as a property owner, if she owned 100 acres and
wanted to subdivide a piece for her son, she would not want to have to place fifty percent of the property into conservation. She added that she may not intend to build on or subdivide the property further, however on principal, it is her land and she would not want to give up her rights. Mr. Bock asked if the Conservation Commission had considered this. Ms. Abrams asked if the ordinance could determine the number of lots that would trigger the conservation requirements. Ms. Beauchamp stated that it could apply to major subdivisions, which would allow three lots to be subdivided without triggering this ordinance. Chair Smith voiced concern over a developer breaking out three lots at a time to avoid the conservation ordinance. Ms. Beauchamp felt it was unlikely that a developer would buy a large lot of land in Nottingham and develop it three lots at a time when he/she would have to wait four years between subdivision applications.
Mr. Gylfphe suggested that the Conservation Commission take the proposal to Mr. Jim Fernald to review, stating that he has a lot of good ideas about conservation in the town as well as property rights for owners. Mr. Bock thought it would be a good idea to incorporate the large land owners into the process, but felt the approach needed to be thought through. Ms. Beauchamp stated that she needed to know where this was going so it could get posted for public meeting. Chair Smith stated it was up to the Conservation Commission as to whether or not they wanted to remove the mandatory requirement. Ms. Abrams reminded everyone that most of what is in the mandatory area is already in conservation. Mr. Bock stated that with all the hot issues that will be addressed at town meeting this year, it is
important that this ordinance be supported in a way that is palatable to everyone. Mr. Bock felt that Nottingham was going to have a volatile Town Meeting due to the items on the agenda this year. Ms. Abrams asked if the Conservation Commission got the ordinance passed this year without the mandatory requirement, could they come back next year to request a change to mandatory. She was informed they could. Mr. Bock felt that the Planning Board should present this as optional this year. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed with members of the Board that this ordinance would be written up as optional.
Chair Smith ended the discussion on the draft of the proposed Conservation Overlay District.
Ms. Chauvey excused herself at 9:10 PM. Ms. Beauchamp stated she would do the notices for the paper the next day, since Ms. Chauvey was leaving. Mr. Bock and Chair Smith asked Ms. Beauchamp to send the notice to them for proofing before being sent to the paper.
2008 Proposed Zoning Changes: (see handout)
Article VI – Dwelling Unit Requirements – Ms. Beauchamp stated that 200’ X 200’ was removed from this article. At Chair Smith’s inquiry, Ms. Beauchamp stated that the land area for multi-family development is being proposed as 45,000 square feet of contiguous upland buildable soils per unit instead of 60,000.
Article VII – Building Permits – Chair Smith inquired about the change from 145 square feet to 121 square feet. Ms. Beauchamp stated that this needed confirmation. Mr. Bock stated that the State’s requirement changed to 120 square feet. Ms. Beauchamp confirmed that the Board wanted the paragraphs beginning, “An applicant may not receive…” and, “The number of building permits issued …,” removed. Chair Smith stated that they are not ordinances followed by the town.
Chair Smith closed the meeting on the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes.
Mr. Gylfphe motioned to adjourn. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Planning Board Secretary
| 
