NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
January 6, 2010
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, Bill Dean; Vice Chair, Arthur Stockus; Secretary, Peter Gylfphe, Susan Mooney, Mary Bonser; Selectmen’s Rep., Robert “Buzz” Davies; Alternate Member,
PB Members Absent: Traci Chauvey; Alt. Member, Cheryl Smith; Alternate Member
Others Present: Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Celia Abrams, Chris Mills, Gail Mills, Elaine Schmottlach, Carl Schmottlach, Judy Doughty, Theresa Thompson, Bonnie Winona, Thomas Sweeney, Katharine Howell, John Terninko, Skip Seaverns, Chet Batchelder, Jim Hadley, Jack Mettee.
Chair Canney called the meeting to order at 7:05pm. Mr. Davies arrived at 7:08 and was seated for the open seat. It was noted that if there was a need for a second public hearing that it would be on January 20, 2010. Mr. Canney opened the public hearing on the articles submitted by the Planning Board. He introduced Jack Mettee, Mettee Planning Consultants, Dover, NH. Mr. Mettee worked with the Workforce Housing (WFH) Subcommittee for three months on these documents. Mr. Canney thanked Mr. Mettee and the Subcommittee for their work.
Mr. Mettee gave a brief explanation of his experience in Nottingham. Mr. Mettee worked on the HCPP project and with the WFH subcommittee. He briefly explained the new State law that is in effect as of January 1, 2010 (NH RSA 674:58-61). He noted that the law just requires that the Town provides the opportunity for WFH (rentals and owner occupied) and not the actual housing. The State regulates the income guidelines that qualify the resident for WFH. He noted that the committee did an audit to find ways that work for Nottingham and meet the State law. This Multifamily Conversion was one way.
In Article VI., Dwelling Units, add a Paragraph #7 to Section G, Multi-Family Development/Conversions.
Mr. Mettee touched on the main ideas of the proposed ordinance. He stated it was important to note that the committee (and Planning Board) were not just allowing this law to happen but instead setting some standards for which it can happen. He reviewed the major points of the ordinance including lot sizes, issuing permits, parking, appearance. Some residents and board members asked questions. There was discussion on whether there should be WFH requirements or a statement with the RSA needed in the document. In the end, the only change made was changing one word; construction to conversion.
At this point, discussion was on changes and if there would be a need for a second public hearing. Mr. Mettee noted that changes can be made as long as the changes do not create a new idea or theme. You are allowed to clarify your original intent.
Ms. Mooney explained that this Multifamily Conversions is the best fit for Nottingham given the other choices that would still meet the rental requirement of the new State law for WFH. It was noted that the PB is only trying to meet the law that says that they must provided the opportunity; they are in, turn, not encouraging or discouraging this type of development. If there are no laws in place then the Town will have no control over this type of development. The Subcommittee, in a very short amount of time, narrowed down the choices but only picked what they believed fit the Nottingham Master Plan and would meet the law.
MOTION by Ms. Bonser to change the word construction to conversion in this proposed ordinance.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
A member of the public commented on the possible burden of the “2.5 children” on the Town and Taxes. Mr. Mettee explained that the current yield for school children, for a two bedroom home is .2, less then a quarter of a child. He noted that workforce housing is more likely to be single individuals or couples. He added that single family homes would yield more school age children.
Mr. Sweeney asked about how Nottingham got lumped into the group it did that determined the $273,000 per home/$1,200 per month figures. Mr. Mettee noted that the State chose to use HUD statistics.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to put this Article VI, Dwelling Units paragraph #7 to Section G Multi-Family proposed ordinance (with corrections made tonight) to the ballot.
SECOND by Mr. Dean
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Canney continued the public hearing for the next proposed ordinance.
Proposed New Open Space Development Ordinance with Workforce Housing Option
Mr. Mettee explained the brief history of this ordinance and how it fits for Nottingham. He noted the Committee’s approach was one that was better defined the old cluster development concept. He noted some added concepts: significant amount of designated open space; with third party monitoring, have the open space be contiguous (not chopped up) for things like wild life corridors, connect with trails, have a section of the open space be used as common open space for that development to determine its use; like soccer fields or common septic systems. The Committee also has provided an opportunity for workforce housing in this open space development if they so choose.
Mr. Mettee noted the law requires income guidelines for what an eligible person(s) is and how it is going to be met. He noted that it is not the Town’s responsibility and there is no cost to the Town for this, the cost and the burden of the details of this will be on the developer.
Mr. Mettee continued with details of the proposed ordinance including development size and density with incentives for the developer. The details of lot size and density were discussed in great detail here and later in the meeting. He also touched on shared driveways, landscape buffers and other design standards. (Full text is available in the planning/zoning office during regular business hours). Discussion again was on monitoring of the open space and common areas; including some unsuccessful ones in town. It was noted that the town does not have control over any home owner associations. There was discussion on yield plans, lot sizes and community designs.
The Board noted that the Planning Board will be able to work with developers for what is best for the Town. Mr. Dean suggested the Board could also use their option of conditional approvals and waivers.
It was noted that the workforce housing law is a mandate from the state and must be dealt with the best way possible. Discussion continued on Homeowner’s Associations, no further subdividing per our existing Zoning Ordinances, the value of the Workforce Housing in this development would have tougher guidelines, reduced costs of roads and lot costs. There were concerns about follow up on the sale or at the end of the 30 years, but it was noted that none of these concerns were to be handled by the Planning Board. It was noted that these conditions should be in the property deeds and by title companies. The flaws and limits in the State law were noted by Mr. Seaverns and others. It was noted that most of these concerns were not something this Board could control.
Ms. Abrams noted where conservation easements were concerned there would be language on the deed and third party monitoring. Mr. Davies again noted the Town only has to provide the opportunity for workforce housing. Mr. Dean again stated again that the Board could put conditions on approvals.
At this point, Mr. Seaverns reviewed in detail some grammatical changes as well as his objections and suggestions to the whole document in great detail. Some of these suggestions were taken and some where not. (Documents with all the changes are available in the planning office during regular business hours). Discussion also occurred on how much this document could be edited tonight. Mr. Davies stated he was hesitant to make too many changes other than things like typos. They did agree that they did not need to have an attorney review the document again if changes were made.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to change section 3.c to read: Preserve those areas of the site that have high environmental or ecological value including, but not limited to, upland wildlife habitat (as identified in the Nottingham Master Plan and areas of high quality habitat as based on NH Fish and Game’s Wildlife Action Plan or Core Conservation Areas designated by the Land Conservation Plan for the Coastal Watershed) and significant water resources such as, but not limited to, critical watersheds, aquifers, wetlands, streams and rivers.
SECOND by Ms. Bonser
VOTE 6-Aye. 1- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
It was noted that the Board could not possibly cover every scenario that may arise but this document was a good foundation to start. It was noted that the voters will need some more education on this document. The Board agreed that they will be spreading the word in various ways as the website, cable, the email list that goes out around town, articles in the Forum and town newsletter and word of mouth. The Board agreed to even hold an additional meeting for those interested in learning more. There was a meeting on the previous Monday night but the only attendee was Mr. Sweeney. Discussion continued on minor edits for clarification including the use of conditional use permits to allow the Board some leeway on negotiating some standards that may not fit with the overall design.
There was much discussion starting at Section 10 Permissible Uses of Open Space; percentage of Open Space and if it should come out of the Designated Open Space, lot sizes and how the Common Area would be taken from the Designated Open Space or the buildable area. Various members of the public made suggestions on the chalkboard to try to clarify what the ordinance was requiring. There were suggestions for wording changes but it was noted that may change the concept too much at this late date. They also discussed the definitions of Designated Open Space and Open Space; and how they work together or could be better defined. Discussion focused on making the changes to the definitions and the legality of the change at this late date.
It was determined that even though this document was not completely perfect, it needed to move forward to the ballot so as to meet the requirements of the new State law. It was noted that if the Town has nothing in place for the new State workforce housing law, then a developer who may come in, in the mean time, could be allowed to do almost anything they wanted. The Board believes that this is a strong foundation to build upon and they could adjust it later, if needed. They also discussed parts of the document that allows them to negotiate with builders on each individual application.
In the end, the Board, Mr. Mettee and most of the people present agreed that the suggested changes were not changes to content or concept but editorial, grammatical and/or for clarification only. They agreed that a second hearing would not be needed. The Board will review the documents to confirm the changes tonight have been made at their next scheduled meeting. Everyone agreed that educating the voters needs to be very clear.
Point of Order: Ms. Bonser left the meeting at approximately 9:50pm. Mr. Mettee left the meeting at approximately 10:30pm.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to accept this amended Open Space Development for the 2010 ballot.
SECOND by Mr. Dean
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Chair Canney thanked Mr. Mettee and the Subcommittee for their all their hard work especially in such a short time.
Petition Warrant Articles:
Point of Order: The Board took the items on the agenda in reverse order.
In Article XI, add a Section C: Expiration of Special Exception Approvals given by the ZBA to be completed within two years.
Jim Hadley, Chair of the Neighborhood Guardians presented the article. He noted his previous appearance before the Board for this and a proposed wetlands ordinance. He passed out a handout and explained that this article was to match last year’s change with the issuing of building permit limits of two years. He noted this was to match that and have Special Exceptions granted by the ZBA to have 2 year limits as well. He did note that recently the ZBA chair has been stressing time limits on most decisions but they still would like to see this article pass. He explained that this came out of a law lecture “What to do when they stop building” by Local Government Center in fall of 2009. He gave an example of USA Springs permits and a history of decisions.
Mr. Gylfphe noted that he could think of five other properties that would be affected by this if it passed. These properties would have to come back to the ZBA if this article passes.
Mr. Hadley asked the Board for their recommendation on passing this proposed petition warrant article. Ms. Mills, from the Nottingham Water Alliance (formally known as the Nottingham Tea Party) also asked the Board for their recommendation.
There was discussion what recommendations can be put on the ballot. It may be just the numbers of the vote or by name. It was also noted that this is a petition warrant article and the Board can’t change anything in it.
MOTION by Mr. Dean to recommend this petition warrant article on Special Exception limits.
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Point of Order: Ms. Bonser was not present for this vote.
Proposed New Wetlands Conservation District Ordinance
Mr. Hadley explained that this ordinance was taken from the Town of Tamworth’s Ordinance. He explained the history of that town’s case and how this ordinance stood up in court. He gave the Board a copy of an article from the Concord Monitor explaining how the wetlands regulations are now shifting from federal and state control to local control. He sited that this ordinance, if passed make someone like USA Springs get a Special Use permit through this Planning Board. He went on to explain that the Tamworth ordinance had stood up in court because it was simple and plain language that was more restrictive than State or Federal laws. He believes this would further protect Nottingham’s critical wetlands. He noted this is presented jointly by the Neighborhood Guardians and the Nottingham Water Alliance. They
asked for the Board’s recommendation.
It was also noted that this too is a petition warrant article and the Board can’t change anything in it.
Mr. Dean asked what the effect would be on the current water case. Mr. Hadley gave his brief outline of dates and a status of USA Spring’s timeline. Mr. Hadley and Mr. Dean noted if passed this would strengthen Nottingham’s position against that case.
Ms. Doughty gave a brief update of the recent Selectmen’s meeting in regards to DES being the sole regulator of large ground water withdrawal. She noted the only weapon they have now is local ordinances. She stated she believes that since this ordinance had passed the test of courts for Tamworth then it could do the same for Nottingham. She went into details of the USA Springs water testing. She stated that we can’t rely on the State to protect Nottingham. She noted this was for protection in all cases. Discussion continued on deadlines and dates permits were issued in the USA Springs case.
Discussion continued on protecting wetlands and how it should be by local regulations; proposed and existing. They also briefly discussed the need for digitizing maps in Nottingham in order to designate and protect our prime wetlands.
Mr. Seaverns noted that town already has an aquifer protection ordinance and there are things in that conflict with this proposal. It was noted this ordinance has not gone through a review process to compare it with Nottingham’s already existing regulations. It was noted that this article has stood up to a court test for Tamworth. It was noted it was also written for Tamworth’s conditions and existing regulations. Discussion again was on USA Springs case and damage done to wetlands already.
Mr. Seaverns asked the Board what the process was for a Special Use permit, as referred to in the article. The Board noted that they do not have a Special Use permit process. Mr. Seaverns believes that this process is done by the Zoning Board in Nottingham.
Mr. Hadley noted that this was originally written back in the early 1990’s but didn’t know the name of the person or planner who wrote it. Mr. Hadley briefly reviewed a proposed Senate Bill SB 369.
Mr. Seaverns cautioned the Board in recommending an ordinance specifically for one case. Ms. Mills noted that this about protecting wetlands, all of them.
Ms. Mooney asked about section f.3. in regards to wetlands not being allowed for lot size calculations. She asked if this conflicted with existing regulations.
Discussion was on how this article has not been reviewed by a planner to see any possible conflicts because it came as a petition warrant article. Mr. Hadley asked if the Planning Board had this reviewed by anyone. Mrs. Sears noted it had not and could not have been because it is a petition article. They reviewed RSA 674:21.
MOTION by Mr. Dean to recommend this proposed wetlands protection ordinance.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
Ms. Mooney stated that she likes that wetlands are not included in lot sizes but noted that means lots will be larger than 2 acres, but all in all it was good for protection and Nottingham.
Mr. Davies stated that he believes this puts too much of an onus on the Planning Board for something that they have not spent any time working on and how it fits into our existing zoning. He didn’t believe that they were ready for this now.
Mr. Dean agreed but noted he believes that we are under the gun in terms of USA Springs. He believes that the waiver clause can assist the Board. Mr. Davies noted that to also puts the onus on the Board. Mr. Canney noted this would need a lot of waivers.
Mr. Canney had concerns about how this water district is formed. He liked the concept but had problems with the details of it.
Mr. Gylfphe had concerns about several statements in the document; including the “excluding of septic systems”. He felt your own system if failed may be in jeopardy.
Discussion was on wording in regards to septic system and how this doesn’t allow them to be repaired. They also discussed in great detail if this ordinance allowed replacement of existing systems in this district. Discussion got off topic on a failed septic on the lake last year. Ms. Winona read the non-conforming uses section. They did not agree on if it did or not.
Mr. Hadley noted he submitted this to the Board on November 18th and had hoped the Board could have worked on it for this year’s vote. Mrs. Sears explained that there were only 2 meetings after that meeting to submit articles to the town counsel in order to meet the public hearing deadlines. She gave the Open Space Development/workforce housing articles as an example, both of those took 3 months and many meetings to create and work on by a sub committee and a professional planner in order to get to this point.
Mr. Dean again stated that he was in favor of adopting in order to gain control for the USA Springs case. He was in favor because there were clauses for waivers.
Ms. Dougherty stated they were in favor of this due to protection of all wetlands.
VOTE 2-Aye. 4- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION FAILED
Mr. Dean and Ms. Mooney were in favor of the recommendation.
MOTION by Mr. Stockus to adjourn
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 5-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.
| 
