NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
September 8, 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; Susan Mooney; Peter Gylfphe, Rick Bacon, Secretary; Gary Anderson, Selectmen’s Rep; Robert “Buzz” Davies, Alternate Member, Traci Chauvey, Alt. Member,
PB Members Absent: Scott Canney; Cheryl Smith, Alt. Member
Others Present: Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk
Chair Stockus called the meeting to order at approximately 7:04 pm. This meeting was televised on cable access Channel 22. Ms. Chauvey was seated for the open seat. Mr. Davies was seated for Mr. Canney.
Review of Minutes
September 1, 2010
Line 20 Line 17-18 Delete: This meeting was televised on cable access Channel 22.
Line 47-55 use Italics to make changes clear
Line 82 insert and after document
Line 83 change make clear to clarify
Line 85 change actual document to Subdivision Regulations, change changed to reviewed
Line 103 insert that the Planning Board after noticed, change expansion to program
Line 105 change effected to affected
Line 140 insert the missing sentence: If this application is accepted as complete and time permits, the public hearing may follow.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to approve the amended minutes for August 11, 2010.
SECOND by Mr. Bacon
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Application Procedures
Mrs. Sears noted that she had given the Board copies of the flow chart and checklist from Subdivision and Site Plan Review Handbook from Southwest Region Planning Commission, December 2001 and Chapter IV from the NH Office of Energy and Planning’s (OEP) The Planning Board in New Hampshire: A Handbook for Local Officials, October 2009. Ms. Chauvey reviewed in great detail the entire application process (OEP Handbook, Section IV, pages 1 -16).
Ms. Chauvey highlighted each phase/step and what the Board’s responsibility and deadlines are and the notifications needed for each phase of a project. There was also discussion on the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing: noting when public input is allowed and when it is not. She also noted that an application must be accepted before the proposal can be discussed in detail or the public is allowed to speak.
Other issues touched upon were:
- Mrs. Sears is the only one that can receive applications due to affected timelines.
- At the first meeting, the application should be reviewed for completeness, Mrs. Sears can do a lot of the completeness review ahead of time, and Mr. Colby can review the plan for completeness as well.
- Also discussed was how the notices and agendas could be written so that the Board can discuss cases when they need to.
Chair Stockus suggested that a Design Review should be done before an application is accepted. Ms. Chauvey agreed but noted that having a Design Review before the application is submitted is not a requirement of our Site Plan Review Regulations or Subdivision Regulations. She noted the recent case where the applicant did not ask for a Design Review but had filed the application. Discussion was on what is the best process: require a Preliminary Conceptual Consultation (PCC) or Design Review before an application is submitted and what the Board should or should not require. This topic and related ones were discussed in great detail a few different times during the meeting.
It was determined that Mr. Bacon is going to look into proper wording for possibly making it a requirement or requiring a Preliminary Conceptual Consultation (PCC) while he is working with Mr. Colby on the Subdivision Regulations. He will present their findings at a future workshop in early October. Mrs. Sears will ask Local Government Center about this issue and the proper process for adopting it. (The graphic on Page IV-1 of the OEP Handbook)
During the discussion on timelines of an application, it was noted that the Site Plan Review Regulations need to be updated as well. Mr. Bacon suggested that he and Mr. Colby may do that after the Subdivision Regulations’ reorganization is completed.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey that the PB require an applicant to go through a Preliminary Conceptual Consultation (PCC) in the Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review Regulations, and encourage a Design Review (DR) before filing an application.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
Mr. Bacon stated he would rather require the DR and not the PCC because the DR is more specific and has more detailed. He believes that it says both time and money to do it this way.
Mr. Davies brought up a concern if a simple Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) or a Back Lot Subdivision would have to go through an extra process then. Mr. Bacon suggested that maybe LLA, minor subdivisions (3 lots or less) should be required to do a PCC instead of the DR. The issue of requiring a PCC would affect a Site Plan/Home Occupation; Minor and Major cases was also discussed but not decided on.
VOTE 3-Aye. 4- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION FAILED
Mr. Bacon stated that he is scheduled to review Subdivision Regulations on Monday with Mr. Colby and they can look at this issue as well. Mr. Stockus will join them.
Ms. Chauvey also cited the requirement in the Subdivision Regulations that state the applicant must fill out Part One and Part Two. She noted that there currently isn’t a Part Two. Chair Stockus noted that it is being worked on by Mr. Bacon and Mr. Colby and should be corrected shortly.
Work Force Housing Guidance Document Final Review & Workforce Housing Sample Covenant Document Review
The Board reviewed the latest version of these documents. They noted that the Guidance Document will be adopted according to the RSA as an appendix to the Subdivision Regulations once complete.
Mr. Gylfphe raised an issue about wording within both documents in regards to an issue raised by counsel: terminations of the covenant in the case of foreclosure. The Board would like to seek counsel’s advice on this issue.
Mrs. Sears additionally needed the Board to clarify the wording on section 4.2 (page 4 of the proposed Covenant Document.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to use the first sentence originally suggested by Mr. Mettee on Section 4.2, page 4, of the Affordable Housing Restrictive Covenant.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 4-Aye. 3- Opposed – 0-Abstained MOTION PASSED
The Board reviewed and discussed the differences in the documents and Counsel’s letter again.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to send both revised documents to counsel for legal review; with the intention of protecting the Town’s covenants.
SECOND by Mr. Bacon
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
When the documents are finalized the Board will follow RSA 675:6 and 7.
Proposed Subdivision Regulations Amendments for Open Space Development
Mrs. Sears updated the Board on this project. She noted Mr. Mettee has not included the changes into the whole document format in the budget for this project so she made the changes from last week. She also reviewed Mr. Mettee’s recommendations on page 2.
Detail discussion followed about what is can be required under a PCC in general and for the Open Space Development section. The Board wanted more time to edit and perhaps merge pages 2 and 3. They will do this as “homework” and review again next week. Mr. Bacon noted that for an Open Space Development you may want to require more than a “napkin” type sketch so that you have enough information to base your suggestions on. The Board may need to require that OSD have to go through the Design Review process first. Mrs. Sears will contact LGC for advice on if the Board can require that.
Other Business
Mr. Anderson will be attending the community Planning Board meeting in Raymond on September 23rd. The Board will give Mr. Anderson any topics they would like to address with Raymond. Mr. Gylfphe briefly discussed a tract of land that borders Epping, Raymond and Nottingham that has or soon will go to auction.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to adjourn at 9:10pm
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
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.
| 
