NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
November 4 , 2009
PUBLIC SESSION
Approved & Amended
Type of Meeting: Scheduled Meeting
Method of Notification: Posted at the Nottingham Municipal Building & Nottingham Post Office
Meeting Location: Nottingham Municipal Building
PB Members Present: Scott Canney; Chair, Arthur Stockus; Secretary, Peter Gylfphe, Mary Bonser; Selectmen’s Rep., Robert “Buzz” Davies; Alternate Member, Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member
PB Members Absent: Bill Dean; Vice Chair, Susan Mooney, Traci Chauvey; Alt. Member,
Others Present: Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Joseph Valencia, George Gilman, Leonard Giles, Peter Landry, Marc Rowe, Fred & Judith Howe, Steve Capron, Rhonda Capron, Chris Albert, Shelley Ledoux, Gary Hodgdon, Ray Howard, Jr.
Mr. Canney called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 pm. Mr. Davies was seated for the open seat. Ms. Smith was seated for Ms. Mooney. The Board tabled the review of previous minutes. Mr. Canney opened the public hearing for:
Case # P09-08- SIT: Joseph Valencia – 65 Old Turnpike Road – Map 5 Lot 5 – Application for a site plan review (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval) for a minor auto repair shop/state inspections station in the residential/commercial zone on Route 4.
Mr. Stockus discussed the results of the site walk on October 10, 2009. Mr. Stockus provided notes including a diagram of the distances of the garage from the street. It was noted that Mr. Valencia has received an area variance, from the ZBA, for the commercial side set backs. Mr. Gylfphe noted he investigated the drainage in the area and believes that it is adequate. Ms. Smith discussed the parking areas noting that the west side (uphill) is the most suitable location. Mr. Valencia agreed. All the Board members agreed that after the site walk the correct distance for the front set back is at 81’ and not the required 100’. They agreed that Mr. Valencia would have to return to the ZBA, again, for this. Ms. Bonser noted that Mr. Valencia should pay the actual costs to the Town when he goes before the ZBA but
perhaps the Board could waive the application fee ($100).
MOTION by Ms. Bonser to relieve Mr. Valencia of any (ZBA) fee except the advertising and abutters notice fee.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Valencia about his waste disposal. He explained that it was all arranged, also noted he already has the required license to transport hazardous waste, if it was later found to be required..
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
Mrs. Sears asked if the Planning Board could waive Zoning Board fees
Ms. Bonser amended her motion.
MOTION by Ms. Bonser to recommend that the ZBA relieve Mr. Valencia of any (ZBA) fees except the advertising and abutters notice fees.
SECOND the amended motion by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess this case (P09-08-SIT) to December 16, 2009 at 7:15pm.
SECOND by Ms. Bonser
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Canney opened the public hearing for the next case:
Case # P09-07- SUB: John Fred & Judith W. Howe– 26 Gebig Road – Map 18 Lot 4 – Application for a 2- lot Subdivision (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval).
Peter Landry told the Board that he is the surveyor on this case and would be representing the Howe’s in this matter. He explained that the Howe’s would like to do a back lot subdivision at 26 Gebig Road, currently 10.5 acres. He reviewed the requirements:
- it has 10.6 acres, it requires a minimum of 6 acres
- became a lot in 1987, it must be a lot of record before 1993
- it have less than 400’ of frontage, it has 375’ of frontage.
- the slopes were noted on average none exceeding the 25%.
He continued to review the details of the plan for the proposed lots. The driveway permit has been started, and there is a subdivision impact assessment form. Mr. Landry also submitted a request for waivers (contours requirement), later Mrs. Sears read the waiver request into the record. He noted that the State subdivision approval is not complete. He also noted that the monuments are not set yet. It was noted that the frontage requirements for the back lot subdivision have been met. Ms. Howe added that they are down sizing and would be building a modest size, one level home on the eight acre site, if approved. She also noted that they wanted to try to maintain as much as the existing field as possible and that the new home will be a “green” one. It was noted that the existing home on the other lot is now
rented out. Mr. Davies asked about the existing driveway; it was at least 12’ and their tenant turns a school bus around in that driveway now.
MOTION by Ms. Bonser to accept this application from Judith & John Fred Howe
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Canney called for abutters. One abutter stated that they were looking forward to the new neighbors. The Board discussed a site walk date. Mr. Hodgdon asked about the old well and relation to the septic. It was noted that the septic site noted on the plan is large enough for it to go in the area noted. The plan is showing the ideal spot and that there is plenty of area to put it in.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to hold a sitewalk for this application from Judith & John Fred Howe on November 14, 2009 at 8:00am.
SECOND by Ms. Bonser
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to have this application from Judith & John Fred Howe return to this Board on December 2, 2009, following the site walk.
SECOND by Ms. Bonser
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mrs. Sears will post the site walk notice and let the Conservation Commission and the police and fire departments know. Mr. Landry will work on getting the State Subdivision Approval.
Mr. Canney opened the next public hearing, it was noted that both these cases are heard as one.
Case # P07-08-SUB: (continued) Little River Realty Trust, Lucille Howard, Trustee – Stage Road – Map 17 Lot 25 – Application for a 6- lot Subdivision (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval)
Case # P07-09-SUB: (continued) Leonard Giles Revocable Trust, Leonard Giles, Trustee – Gebig Road – Map 17 Lot 31 – Application for a 23- lot Subdivision (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval)
Mr. Albert passed out 3 copies of the Howard plan and he only had one copy of the Giles plan. He also presented a colored plan, all in greens of the both sites showing the conservation areas and easements. Ms. Smith noted that this plan was very difficult to see, the colors chosen were too similar. She asked Mr. Albert to return to the Board with a more colorful and easier to read one, next time. Mr. Albert also submitted a copy of the sample Protective Covenant of Phase I and a sample Conservation Easement Deed, for the Board’s review.
Mr. Albert noted he still needs to meet with the Nottingham Conservation Commission, but they had received recommendation from the Fire Department. He noted that the high intensity soil mapping is done, as well as the test pits for the ponds and cisterns. They are still submitting data to the State for DES. He believes it will be at least another month before the State approvals come back. Ms. Smith asked about retention ponds. He noted there are 10 ponds total. They also discussed the location of the 2 cisterns recommended by the fire department.
Mr. Albert noted that they do have over 11,000 square feet of wetlands impact. He will go into more details in this area when he meets with the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Gylfphe noted that on the Howard plan lot 25-3 the well is in the septic area. Mr. Albert stated that things got shifted around and the plans need to be fine tuned. Again, Mr. Albert mentions that it has been hard converting Mr. Ladd’s old drawings. He went on to point out that it also happens on a few other lots. Mrs. Sears noted that there needs to be 6 sets of plans of final plans for both the Howard’s and Giles’. She noted that the Board members need to look at these and they should not spend their time looking at sets that are not final or have known errors in them. Ms. Smith noted she would like a set in plenty of time to review, before the next meeting. Mr. Albert will get the corrected set (topographic plans, details, plan profile etc) to Mrs. Sears for Monday November 9th.
Mr. Canney called for abutters or members of the public to speak. There was none.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess this application from Howard/Giles to the December 16th meeting, as the second case of the evening.
SECOND by Ms. Bonser
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Workforce Housing Subcommittee Update
Peter Landry, subcommittee member presented an update of what the subcommittee and Jack Mette, Mette Planning, have done in their first three meetings:
- they had a general meeting to get all the subcommittee members, some from the general public, up to speed on what the new law entails and define their goals. It was noted that Nottingham must provide the opportunity (in 50% of the town) for workforce housing in two ways; for home ownership and renting; per the new State law.
Ownership would mean a home for under $273,000 and renting for about $1,200 per month.
Multifamily housing is defined by the State as 5 or more units.
The subcommittee decided due to very limited time frame, to tackle an update to existing Multifamily Zoning Ordinance to meet new law and also to revisit the old cluster development.
This new law takes effect January 1, 2010. If Nottingham has no guidelines by then a developer can come in with any plan they want.
They will work on an Open Space Ordinance by updating it and taking out the parts that did not work.
Conversions of old barns or buildings as a way to meet the renter portion of the law (5-8 units).
The use of Conditional Use Permits for the Planning Board to use per RSA 674:21.2 will give the Board some flexibility.
Details of the ordinance would have to be worked out and have matching subdivision regulations of its own.
Mr. Mette has based the ordinance on models from the NH DES, so that Nottingham is not inventing anything new and unproven.
The Board briefly discussed other planning concepts and ideas in regards to an open space ordinance. It was also noted that any ordinance needs to give the Board flexibility, a cookie cutter approach doesn’t work for Nottingham.
The Board discussed the budget and meeting schedule and the work load and timing of the subcommittee. The Board reviewed the contract, it was noted at a previous meeting Mrs. Bonser had made a motion the Board approved for 3 meetings with Mr. Mette but no dollar amount. It was noted that the line item for planner may go over but he bottom line budget will not go over. Mr. Canney read the contract and general terms and conditions.
MOTION by Mr. Stockus to approve the contract with Jack Mette, Mette Planning
SECOND by Ms. Bonser
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Ms. Bonser to allow Mr. Canney to sign the contract with Jack Mette, Mette Planning
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Canney signed the contract. The Board agreed to allow Ms. Mooney to work on any PR articles related to the subcommittee and their work. It was noted that this information needs to get to the residents and explain how the State is requiring the Town to come up with this ordinance.
The Board thanked Mr. Landry, Mr. Mette and the rest of the subcommittee for all the great work they have done in such a short amount of time.
USA Springs administrative review of site plan review timeline
Mrs. Sears gave the Board the dates requested for the building permits: Nov. 22, 2006 for original foundation, July 26, 2007 for structure. The original site plan approval by the PB was on November 16, 2005 (Point of Order: but was contested in court and all parties approved on 10/16/06)
Mr. Gylfphe noted in a recent training session with LGC that if the project was started before 7/1/05 then the site plan review could be revoked (after 12 months to start and 4 years to complete) but it had not so he noted this puts the end to that discussion. It was noted that this information is in the book “What do you do when they stop building?”
Ms. Smith gave the Board a brief update erosion control activity at the site, as reported to the Conservation Commission.
It was noted, in the future, that a Planning Board in its approval process could set benchmarks for large projects like this to make sure that progress is made throughout a project. It was noted that the Planning Board is in no position to do anything with the US Springs case until the 6 year mark.
Other Business
Ms. Bonser noted that when a public hearing, as the recent subdivision regulations one is held, the minutes need to reflect the history or reason why they are being changed, even when there are no members of the public in attendance. Mr. Gylfphe noted that these minutes were just handed out and that they can be amended and approved.
Mrs. Sears had the Board sign the new copy of the approved subdivision regulations.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to adjourn
SECOND by Ms. Bonser
VOTE 6-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.
| 
