NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
November 19, 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: Robert “Buzz” Davies: Alternate Member, Mr. Peter Gylfphe; Vice Chair, Mr. Scott Canney, Mr. Bill Netishen; Selectmen’s Representative,
Members Absent: Mr. Dave Smith; Chair, Ms. Traci Chauvey; Alternate Member, Bob Davidson, Ms. Sue Mooney, Ms. Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member
Others Present: Mrs. Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Judy Batchelder, Chet Batchelder, Ronald Batchelder, David Noyes, Jeff Salava, Cynthia Copeland; SRPC
Vice Chair Gylfphe called the meeting to order at approximately 7:02 pm.
Mr. Davies was seated for the vacant seat
Review of Previous Minutes
The Board tabled the minutes until there were more members present.
Mr. Gylfphe read the first case:
Lot Line Adjustment Application -design review, acceptance and final approval (Case # P08-04-LLA) from Ronald & Chester Batchelder for a lot line adjustment between Lots 135 and 136 on Nottingham Tax Map 24. The subject property is owned by applicants is located on 3 Case Road & 244 Mill Pond Road.
The Board reviewed the set of 2 plans presented by the applicant and Mr. Noyes. One plan had the spot elevations, the other did not. Mr. Chet Batchelder gave a brief overview of the last time they had appeared before the Board (June 18, 2008). He presented a letter with the request from 2 waivers; the impact statement form and the contour lines.
The Board reviewed the plans. It was noted that there was a minor typo on the plans and there also needed to be a total of 8 lines for signatures. Mr. Noyes agreed to correct the errors.
Mr. Gylfphe noted that the Town requires granite bounds on all boundary corners. (Article VI, Section B.4). The Board discussed and agreed that the applicant could request a waiver from that Article. Mr. Noyes added the request for that waiver onto the letter. They also noted that this was a simple lot line change; no new lots are being created and this was for two brothers that are dividing, fairly equally, land they had inherited from their father.
MOTION by Mr. Canney to accept all three waivers, as noted on the letter from the applicant for this case.
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 3-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Noyes will also submit the corrected plan at the next meeting on December 3rd and the Board will sign the plans at that time.
MOTION by Mr. Canney to accept and approve the lot line adjustment for (Case # P08-04-LLA) Ronald & Chester Batchelder between Lots 135 and 136 on Nottingham Tax Map24
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 3-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mrs. Sears noted the fees she will need to collect before that plan can be recorded with the Registry of Deeds. Chet Batchelder agreed.
Jeffrey Salava, 28 Lincoln Drive, Tax Map 3 Lot 11-4, Discussion on home occupation/need for variance
Mr. Salava apologized for not making the last meeting due to his work schedule. He explained that he has started a very small business selling baked goods and pickles to farmers. He noted that he does not want a store front or a wholesale business.
Discussion was on if and when there would be a commercial kitchen with State septic approvals. Mr. Salava explained that it was the setbacks for the new building; garage/kitchen. He noted if the Board believes this to be a home occupation then he has to ask for a variance (less then 50’) from the ZBA. If the Board believes this to be a commercial enterprise then it has a 150’ set back. He explained the rough layout of the home, septic system, etc to the Board and he noted that he will need the variance because there is no other place for him to put the building. He did not present a plan or sketch of the property.
Mr. Salava believes this to be a homestead (home occupation) and does not plan to put in the commercial kitchen right away; he would just like to plan for it now. The Board asked about the products he sells. The Board discussed if this was a home occupation or if they needed to do a site plan review.
Mr. Netishen noted that it would have been helpful to have some kind of plan for the Board to review. He added it was difficult to determine without one. Mr. Netishen believes it should be a site plan review. Mr. Canney agreed that the ZBA will need a set of plans also, but felt it was a home occupation.
Mr. Gylfphe stated that he believes it is a home occupation but if his business expands then Mr. Salava should return for the site plan review process. He noted that he will not be doing the pickles right away. He explained that he plans to do this business in phases, due to costs.
After much discussion, the Board concluded that this was a home occupation. They would like to have Mr. Salava to go to the ZBA first then they would like Mr. Salava to return to the Board to determine if he is a minor or major home occupation. Mr. Salava thanked the Board.
Conservation Overlay District (COD)
Ms. Copeland started the discussion noting she had read the minutes, from tow previous meetings and wanted to let the Board know that Nottingham would not be the first in the State to have a Conservation Overlay District. She noted that New Durham has one and that is the one she had model Nottingham’s after. If Nottingham finishes and passes it in 2009, they will be the second or third Town to do so.
Mr. Gylfphe again brought up that there would be difficulty in determining the exact locations on individual lots to determine how much was in or out of the COD. Ms. Copeland explained that it would be determined by the Conservation Commission, the Applicant/Agent and this Board; perhaps including a site walk. She noted that it was part of the process/negotiation; just as any other part of an applicant. She cited the discussion before this one were the Board discussed for 45 minutes what should be done in that case.
Mr. Gylfphe wanted there to be concrete markers of some kind because it would determine how many house lots the builder would get out of a property.
Open Space/Work Force Housing
Mr. Netishen suggested a time table for this discussion. The Board agreed to discuss this topic until 9:00pm. He asked Ms. Copeland about a Growth Management Plan for the Region. She explained they have a Master Plan for the region and Regional Housing Needs Assessment. She briefly explained what those cover. She noted that, by law, the Planning Board is required to work out the Work Force Housing issue. The Board agreed.
Mr. Netishen asked how the Open Space document works with their Regional Master Plan. He noted the Open Space document is very similar to the COD. She agreed.
Ms. Copeland stated that in order for the Open Space or COD concepts to work then the Board must let go of the two acre zoning. They must go to one or one and a half acre for it to work. She noted other wise you end up with developments that look similar to the Highlands or Brooks Crossing; where the undeveloped lands get put into open space.
She explained that the Open Space would put in protections for any resources they wanted to protect; that limits risk and exposure to things like erosion, etc. for the Town. She noted this Open Space would cover some of the same issues as the COD but on a smaller scale. This was for those who are conservation minded but didn’t have one of the highly values areas as the COD.
She went on to explain that in the COD, the Town is saying that these resources (wetlands, wildlife habitats, water) are so highly valued that we are going to change the zoning there; and have the developer put the structures closer together and as far away from those resources as possible. This would be a voluntary alternative to a regular subdivision. She explained how the process works in Durham. She noted that Nottingham is one of the last towns to do an Open Space document, although Nottingham has had a similar cluster development ordinance in the past.
The Board members noted that they all must consider the following; before anyone should even consider continuing the work on the Open Space or COD.
· Are you willing to give up the 2 acres zoning? If they are not then they should not even consider working on the Open Space or COD; as the details will not work out?
· Would the Board consider allowing septic and wells on common areas?
· Would the Board allow for Community septic and wells?
The Board agreed that they will seriously consider these issues, as their “homework”.
They Board briefly discussed workforce housing and the related issues with the new law, and the nature and history of this issue. They also briefly discussed ideas to make workforce housing more integrated than it has been done in the past in other states. Mr. Netishen was concerned that the workforce be done right because it will have an affect on the community for years to come.
Ms. Copeland will forward the ordinance she is working on for Barrington for the Board to look over.
Mr. Canney noted that he felt the COD was almost done, and that they worked on it all summer long. He also noted that he believes that community septic/septic systems in common areas should be allowed. He noted the Open Space will not be done in time for the 2009 vote. Mrs. Sears noted there needs to be a consensus with the whole board present and decide to move forward or not (with the COD and these concepts in general). She noted that once the Board decides on the direction they must stick to it. She also noted that the “to do” list was meant to help with this issue as well.
Mr. Netishen stated he hoped all members come to the next meeting ready to decide and possible get right into work.
Mr. Davies suggested make the minimum density of five acres for everyone, in the conservation area. He noted the incentive for the COD would be the one that they save money on due to the decrease in infrastructure costs. Ms. Copeland agreed that may work, it would be a district instead of an overlay.
Mr. Davies also suggested that there be only one percentage for how much of the land can be developed. Ms. Copeland noted then that low density will still save the valued land. The Board would need to alter the current subdivision regulations if they went with Mr. Davies idea. They pointed out examples of what subdivisions in town that works well.
MOTION by Mr. Canney to adjourn at 9:22pm.
SECOND by Mr. Davies
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.
| 
