NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
June 23, 2010
PUBLIC SESSION
Approved & Amended
Type of Meeting: Regularly scheduled meeting
Method of Notification: Posted at the Nottingham Municipal Building & Nottingham Post Office
Meeting Location: Nottingham Municipal Building
PB Members Present: Arthur Stockus, Chair; Bill Dean, Vice Chair; Rick Bacon, Secretary; Gary Anderson, Selectmen’s Rep; Susan Mooney; Peter Gylfphe, Scott Canney;
PB Members Absent: Cheryl Smith, Alt. Member, Traci Chauvey, Alt. Member
Others Present: Lisa Sears, Land Use Clerk; Paul Colby, Building Inspector & Code Administrator; Robert “Buzz” Davies, Alternate Member (not seated), Tom Sweeney, Joe Coronati, Jones & Beach Engineering
Chair Stockus called the meeting to order at approximately 7:06 pm. This meeting was televised on cable access channel 22. Introductions were made for the Board and Staff. The Board tabled the review of the minutes until after the Public Hearing. Chair Stockus opened the public hearing for:
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. Coronati from Jones & Beach Engineers, Inc. gave the Board an update of the projects and he reviewed the items from his letter dated June 3, 2010. Some of the points discussed were:
- Added a note to plans stating there is a Home Owners’ Association for the maintenance of the detention ponds.
- There are 7 waiver requests for wells, septic systems, and test pits. There was a detailed discussion on a lot by lot basis for these topics. Mr. Sweeney expressed concern by the need for waivers at this time. It was noted the need for waivers came from a change in the Zoning Ordinances since the original test pits were done. (discussed again later in the meeting)
Various details added to the plans and changes to hatching marks on the plans suggested by Jack Mettee’s Compliance review to make them clearer.
- Notes that the road must be constructed all the way through both subdivisions (discussed in detail later in the meeting)
Added a note to plans stating that building permits will be issued once the roadway is up to subgrade gravel and certificates of occupany can be issued once the base pavement is placed.
- Added 20’ access to Town property without travelling through wetlands. (discussed again later in the meeting)
Confirmation that the site doesn’t fall under any Shoreland Protection District and no permits are needed.
- The State and Army Corp of Engineers doesn’t feel that the Conservation Easement areas provide adequate mitigation for wetland impact. (discussed again later in the meeting)
During the discussion on the need for waivers, Mr. Davies asked about the waiver process and how permanent a waiver if granted is? Mr. Canney noted once the waiver is granted it is set in stone but it was the only for the actual subdivision plans but once the final septic system is designed the need for the waiver could no longer be needed. Mr. Bacon agreed with Mr. Davies but stated he believes the waiver is just for the subdivision and the septic design would still be needed and approved by the State. It was also noted that Mr. Colby also reviews these septic designs before they go to the State as well. Mr. Anderson noted that these plans are just general purposes, to prove that a house, well and septic system can go on each lot; actual locations of each of these items can change.
Mr. Dean explained the change in our Zoning Ordinance that may have caused this confusion. He noted that all requirements will still need to be met before the required State approval.
During the discussion of the 20’ access easement, on Giles Plan #TS4 Mr. Coronati noted that a lot of issues have come up with mitigation for the wetlands and the ownership of the Town Parcel that the access was to be for. The State has said that the mitigation is not adequate. Mr. Coronati also explained that the surveyor from his company who, while reviewing the 20’ access researched the parcel they were providing access to and his conclusion was that it is not owned by the Town of Nottingham. He provided the Board with an outline of a document that traced the deed chain for the parcel in question. He stated that they believe the parcel is actually owned by someone on Rte 152. Mr. Coronati offered to have their surveyor come to talk with the Town if they wanted. Mr. Coronati noted that they didn’t want
to provide that access if the Town didn’t own the land because that would create a buildable lot out there. Mr. Coronati explained that the need to correct the mitigation with the State by moving the lot lines. He would also put this area in deed restriction instead of the 20’ easement/access.
Mr. Dean asked Mr. Coronati if they could provide language in the affected deeds, in this area, that would simply state that there was a “potential 20’ easement” to the parcel for the Town provided that the Town should ever provide proof of ownership of the abutting property. Mr. Dean suggested that the easement would not apply to anyone but the Town of Nottingham. Mr. Coronati was not sure if something could be worded in such a way that would not be difficult in future title searches of the parcels or would be enforceable to have a “potential easement”. Mr. Coronati will look into the feasibility of having a “potential easement” on a deed and the language it would have to have.
Ms. Mooney updated the Board on Mr. Coronati’s meeting with the Conservation Commission (CC). Later in the meeting, she explained that Jones & Beach Engineering has agreed to hire Mark West to do a wildlife study and report back to the CC with his recommendations on how best to protect the area. She noted it may end up being through deed restrictions but she wanted to wait for his final report.
Mr. Coronati explained again they are still working on the mitigation issue with the State and may end up contributing to a mitigation fund.
Mr. Coronati then discussed in detail the slopes (one to one ratio) on the sides of the road to reduce some of the wetland impacts with rip-rap. Later in the meeting, Mr. Colby reviewed the regulations and noted that this request did not need a waiver and would be allowed. It was noted the road elevation would not change because all of this is outside the guardrails and they are already required to install guardrails in these areas with these types of slopes. Everyone briefly discussed the two estimates for the road construction.
The Board reviewed and discussed the waivers requests:
MOTION by Mr. Canney to approve the waiver request for reduced well setbacks on the Howard/Giles Plans for Map 17 Lots 25-3, 31-10, 31-8.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
Mr. Bacon agreed with Mr. Davies’ earlier point about having these waivers just for the subdivision purpose only and the actual septic design will still be reviewed and approved with Mr. Colby. Mr. Colby agreed.
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Canney to approve the waiver request to allow the (4K) septic area located within the front setbacks on the Howard/Giles Plans for Map 17 Lots 25-3, 25-5, 31-1.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Canney to approve the waiver request to allow for only 2 test pits in the 4k reserve area on the Howard/Giles Plans for Map 17 Lot 25-3.
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Sweeney expressed concern for the note on the plan that appears to allow one part of the road to be built and just bond the other half. Chair Stockus agreed and noted that they wanted more than just a note on the plan. Mr. Coronati noted he suspects neither applicant will probably build their road; it may be sold to one company/person who would own/construct the whole road/project. He noted any notes on a plan would be valid for any new owner. Mr. Coronati noted that the wording on the plan that states the road has to be bonded covers the Town. Chair Stockus agreed but noted the Town didn’t want to be put in the position of developer.
Mr. Dean would like Mr. Coronati to go back to the attorney for some creative suggestions on how to treat the road as one entity but contributed by both owners, fully bonded and built all at once. Mr. Canney stated once a note is on the recorded plan he wasn’t sure how much any other document could be enforced.
Mr. Colby compared notes (on both plans): number eleven (minus “or bonded” requirement) and note 17 that requires the road to be built before building permits can be issued cover the issue. Mr. Anderson recalled this discussion.
Mr. Dean disagreed and believes that having an additional agreement with the owners would give the Planning Board “the ability to shut something down” but doesn’t give them “the impetus to get this up and get it done”. Mr. Colby disagreed again stating if they don’t build the road then they can’t get any building permits. Mr. Canney, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Colby. Mr. Dean was concerned that all these efforts will be for nothing and this project will not get built which he believes is part of this Board’s responsibility. Mr. Colby disagreed and pointed out that subdivisions get approved and not built, all the time.
Mr. Coronati reminded the Board that everyone can go bankrupt and the safety valve is that there would be no homes built out there without a road. Mr. Colby again noted that the recorded plan (with both notes regarding road construction and permits) is a legal document itself. Mr. Coronati also noted that Planning Boards can also set conditional approvals, and State law doesn’t allow the sale of lots without roads, as well.
The Board briefly discussed the stage of construction of the road but made no changes to that note on the plan.
MOTION by Mr. Gylphe to remove “or bonded” part of the note #11 sheet SD1 on both plans, and add the word “built” between is and to, to notes Note #19 on Giles Plan sheet SD1 and #17 on Howard sheet SD1
SECOND by Mr. Canney
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Coronati asked the board if it was ok to change the plans to reflect the lot lines in the mitigation areas (20’ easement/access) previously discussed. He would like to change them to deed restriction areas and then provide the Board with a new set of plans for the RCCD review. The Board did not object.
Mr. Bacon asked for a copy of the draft Home Owners Association Documents including how the maintenance of the retention/detention ponds will be handled. Mr. Coronati agreed.
Mr. Dean asked Mr. Coronati for clarification on the parcel that was believed to be owned by the Town. Mr. Coronati offered to bring the surveyor to the next meeting. Mrs. Sears noted that she believes the Town Administrator and the Town Attorney are aware of the situation.
Mr. Coronati explained that one of the applicant’s relatives is getting up to speed as he will be taking over the management of this project. He noted that Howard’s side of the project is all approved with the State, the Giles’ side is still waiting on the Wetlands permit due to mitigation issues previously discussed and once they have that they can get their State subdivision approval. Chair Stockus noted that the applicant will need checks for the Bonds on the roads. Mrs. Sears noted that the bill for the third party compliance review done by Mettee Planning Consultants will have to be paid in full for both projects before any approvals from the Board. Mr. Coronati noted that he believes that Giles has paid it in full directly to Mr. Mettee but the Howards will be making installments.
Mr. Dean asked about terminology of detention or retention ponds. Mr. Coronati stated that he uses both terms. Mr. Anderson also requested more details for what the Home Owners Association was responsible (operations/maintenance plan) for and when, in regards to the retention/detention ponds.
MOTION by Mr. Dean to recess these cases to July 28, 2010 at 7:00pm.
SECOND by Mr. Bacon
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Review of Minutes
June 9, 2010
Line 37 add s to Associate
Line 44 add apostrophe on Owners
Line 53 change Boards to Board’s
Line 56 change alternated proposed to alternate proposal
Line 62 delete were
Line 80 delete s on protections
Line 87 change Owner’s to Owners’
Line 94 insert that at after added
Line 95 change acres to acre
Line 97 change site to sight
Line 123 insert his after of
Line 127change USGC to USGS
Line 129 change recreated to created
Line 131 it’s to its
Line 132 to to into
Line 145 change concern for site lines, over all to concerned for sight lines, overall
Line 153 insert potential before increased
Line 154 add s to issue
Line 155 add d to increase
Line 157 change or to of
Line 174 change site to sight
Line 184 insert development before would
Line 187 change Boards to Board’s
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to approve the minutes of June 9, 2010 as amended.
SECOND by Mr. Dean
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED
New Business/Old Business
Chair Stockus announced that Jack Mettee will be at the July 14th meeting. The Board will be going over the items with Mr. Mettee that they had been due to go over with him on June 16th.
Possible Topics for September23rd, Community PB meeting in Raymond.
Chair Stockus asked the Board if they had any topics they wanted to submit to Raymond’s Community Planner for this meeting. They briefly discussed ideas. Mr. Anderson suggested that the idea of preserving Pawtuckaway State Park came up at a recent Selectmen’s meeting. Ms. Mooney suggested information on reducing road widths. Ms. Mooney and Mr. Anderson will contact the Community Planner directly with their suggestions.
New Subdivision Regulation Application and Checklist
Mrs. Sears asked the Board if they could finish reviewing this to-do list item in the near future as she wants to put it into use as soon as possible. Mr. Colby will finish working on the checklist part, possibly with Mr. Bacon’s assistance, for an August 4th workshop meeting.
Mrs. Mooney asked about the rest of the items on their to-do list. It was noted that the Planning Board has a lot of work with their major projects already under way. Mr. Davies asked if the rest of the Board knew if the last workshop scheduled with Mr. Mettee did not happen due to lack of a quorum. It was noted that the Board is one month behind on the projects they have started. The Board also noted that they had to pay Mr. Mettee for his travel time even though the meeting was postponed.
Posting of Agendas
MOTION by Mr. Dean to have agendas and minutes posted at the post office on a regular basis.
Mr. Dean explained he meant both Nottingham post offices. Mrs. Sears clarified that the Selectmen’s Office had asked the Board if they could not post at the Post Offices due to extreme crowding of the bulletin boards there. She noted that the Post Office has allowed the Town to post there as a courtesy. Chair Stockus agreed that in his experience that the bulletin board was very crowded with Town and Federal notices.
Ms. Mooney noted that Ms. Sears was involved in getting the outside bulletin board here at the Community Center. Mr. Anderson will inquire with the Postmaster to see if there is anything that can be done.
MOTION by Mr. Dean to post the agendas and minutes at both post offices in a timely manner.
Chair Stockus called for a Second to the Motion; there was none. Mr. Anderson stated that he didn’t believe that posting the minutes at the post office were required. Mr. Dean stated “clean slate” and made another motion. (Point of Order: rescinding his first two motions.)
MOTION by Mr. Dean to post the agendas of all our meetings at both post offices in a timely manner.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Colby said there were no legislative updates.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to adjourn at approximately 9:53pm.
SECOND by Mr. Dean
VOTE 7-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.
| 
