NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
November 10, 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; Peter Gylfphe, Vice Chair; Rick Bacon, Secretary; Susan Mooney; Gary Anderson, Selectmen’s Rep, Robert “Buzz” Davies, Alternate Member
PB Members Absent: Scott Canney; Cheryl Smith, Alt. Member, Traci Chauvey, Alt. Member
Others Present: Lisa Sears, Land Use Clerk, Greg Lynch, David Desantis, Joseph Falzone; Harbor Street Limited Partnership, Douglas Greiner; (Landscape Architect), Christian Smith; Beals Associates, Joseph Coronati; Jones & Beach Engineers, Willmon Holmes, Marilyn & Jeffery Cole; JC Builders, Ken Sachs
Chair Stockus called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 pm. Mr. Davies arrived at 7:12pm. Mr. Davies was seated for Mr. Canney. Introductions of the Board members were made.
Approval of Minutes
The Board tabled the minutes.
At 7:06, Chair Stockus opened the Public Hearing for:
Case #P10-05-DR-An application from Harbor Street Limited Partnership for Preliminary Design Review for a 29-lot conventional subdivision or a 21-lot Open Space Development subdivision. The properties in question are located on Ledge Farm Road and identified as Tax Map 58 Lot 4 and Tax Map 58 Lot 6-2A owners of record: Harbor Street Limited Partnership and Winthrop R. True respectively.
Christian Smith from Beals Associates was representing the owners; Joe Falzone (present) and Winthrop True (not present). Mr. Smith explained that they are before the Board for a design review to allow for input from the Board and abutters on the two plans presented.
He reviewed both plans: a 29-lot conventional subdivision with about two acres parcels each, 5800 linear feet of road, possible 2-3 wetlands crossing/encroachments to accomplish that road. He discussed the requirement of two access points for the road (on the 29 lot conventional plan) and the number of lots that it yields made the project not financially feasible. Mr. Smith briefly reviewed the benefits of the Open Space Development (OSD) Plan with a cul-de-sac; has a much shorter road, 8 fewer lots and little to no wetland impacts. He noted the lack of access issue noting that having the cul-de-sac would be safe because they would have a fire pond or cistern installed, whichever is required by the Town.
Mr. Greiner from G2 plus One, the landscape architect/site planner for the project introduced himself and presented a colored plan and maps illustrating proposed yards, septic systems, garages, open space, etc for the 21-lot Open Space Development Subdivision. He explained the most notable feature/benefit to the OSD plan was the large open space with trails for residents and that this large open space connects to many other neighboring open space areas. He reviewed wildlife and topographic maps highlighting that if this open space is part of the highest ranking Wildlife Focus Area per NH Fish and Wildlife Agency. He also described how the area is a high ranking habitat and discussed the types of trees found there. He noted that this area is better than average amount and quality of open space being preserved in the OSD
plan.
Ms. Mooney noted that this open space would also be a buffer for Dunbarton Estates. She also asked if they had considered duplexes instead of single family homes. Mr. Falzone noted that they are going by what the market dictates and they are proposing affordable housing for these single family homes. Mr. Falzone also touched on the benefits of the OSD plan and the history of his projects in Nottingham.
Mr. Gylfphe expressed concern for having any subdivision with its additional traffic and poor conditions on the old, “scenic” Ledge Farm Road. Mr. Falzone suggested that traffic numbers from a traffic study would answer all of Mr. Gylfphe’s questions. Mr. Falzone suggested that he could not be held accountable for conditions of an existing road.
Members of the Board got clarification on the entrance and its setbacks and the number of lots for each plan.
Mr. Greiner also noted that the OSD plan would have less road and there for less costs for the Town to maintain.
There was discussion on the Town’s Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinances. It was noted that the Board does have the ability to waive the no cul-de-sacs requirement and smaller lot sizes because it is in the Subdivision Regulations not the Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Greiner noted the section of the OSD that allows the Board to use Conditional Use Permits, as well.
Ms. Mooney explained the history of monitoring the critical wetlands of the Highlands in 2005 or 2006. Mr. Gylfphe touched on the longer road in this project then in previous cul-de-sac projects and safety issues with only having one entrance.
Chair Stockus opened the discussion to the public at about 7:45pm.
He read the letter from Robert Claxton the abutter at 85 Ledge Farm Road. Mr. Claxton was not in favor of the project and expressed concern for the poor road conditions and the increased traffic in the area, noting that the school bus doesn’t even go all the way up the road. He also stated that he didn’t believe that the tax payers should have the burden of the cost of fixing the road.
Gregg Lynch, O’Brien Road resident stated that he was in favor of the OSD plan and asked the Board to consider saving as much open space as possible. Mr. Desantis, O’Brien Road resident was also in favor of the OSD plan.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to close the public hearing for this case.
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Bacon asked if the center line of the proposed road (OSD plan) can be flagged for a site walk. Mr. Gylfphe noted he preferred the OSD plan but still had concerns with road conditions and traffic. Mr. Gylfphe suggested that Mr. Falzone consider helping to repair the existing roads and keeping this proposed road as a gravel road.
Mr. Davies stated preferred liked the (OSD plan) due to less lots, less traffic, less build out of the quality open space, if these were the only choices.
Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Davies and added that had concerns with road conditions like Mr. Gylfphe.
Ms. Mooney preferred the OSD plan as well for all the about reasons and added that she also liked that the homes being proposed are modest in size which fit with Nottingham’s personality. Mr. Falzone noted that all the homes will meet the mandate for the States/Town’s affordable housing requirement, but that he was not doing it officially due to the 30 year restriction. These homes will range in the $220-240,000 range, energy efficient as well.
Chair Stockus agreed with the rest of the Board for reasons already stated. They agreed to hold a site walk for members. They agreed to have the 3 members who could attend on Sat. November 13th at 1:00pm.
Chair Stockus opened the public hearing for:
Case # P10-04- SIT: (continued) Roger & Charlene Hemeon – 104 Old Turnpike Road – Map 4 Lot 10 & 14 – Application for a site plan review (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval) for Multi-family development with four duplexes and one single family condominium.
Mr. Coronati, Jones & Beach Engineers, was present with Jeff and Marilynn Cole. Mr. Coronati stated that the Coles are now the proud owners of the property since they last met. Mr. Coronati also stated that they have their State Subdivision Approval but are awaiting the State Septic approval due about next week. They are still working with Department of Transportation on driveway/access approval on Route 4.
Mr. Coronati discussed the changes on the plans and the change in number of bedrooms in a few of the units due to septic requirements. He also noted the site walk took place but they still need Rockingham County Conservation District (RCCD) to review the plans. They do have the RCCD estimate for the escrow account.
Chair Stockus reviewed some outstanding issues including the memo from Heidi Seaverns, Tax Assessment Department concerning the need to merge the lots (RSA 674:39a). Mr. Coronati agreed to do that as part of a conditional approval. The Board would like new copies of the new deed, a new signed application due to the change in ownership. They noted other than already noted the project has not changed.
Mr. Anderson noted that he attended the site walk and reviewed the abutter’s concerns about headlights shining into his windows. Mr. Anderson stated that he viewed the grading and distance and didn’t see any issues. He suggested some screening as a courtesy anyway.
Mr. Davies agreed, noted that the concerned abutter had plenty of growth (mostly deciduous) in his own yard to screen any headlights. He noted that there was about 150-200’ between the proposed project’s property line and the abutter’s back deck. Mr. Coronati discussed the angle of the road, the guardrail and grading. Mr. Gylfphe suggested the shrubbery (2-3’ high) as a courtesy as well. Mr. Cole Agreed. Chair Stockus asked about the slopes on both properties.
Mr. Bacon confirmed the changes to the plans; number of bedrooms and septic system requirements. Ms. Mooney confirmed that the Home Owners Association will be taking care of the retention pond.
Mr. Anderson asked about the existing home and how it fits into the project. Mr. Coronati and Mr. Cole confirmed the existing home will be upgraded on the inside and out to fit into the whole project.
Mr. Davies expressed concern for the frontage requirement (for a Multifamily Development) for this project. He explained his interpretation of the ordinance; noting he believes that this project should have more frontage. He believes the intent of the ordinance is one unit per frontage requirement. He noted that it has an existing home that uses up 200’ of their 442.64’ of frontage there for they don’t meet the required frontage as he reads the ordinance. He believes that this project requires 1400’ of frontage for this many units (300’ x 4 units plus 200’ for existing home). The Board discussed and debated and looked up various sections and definition in the Zoning Ordinances (ZO) and how this case should proceed. Mr. Davies also expressed concern about setting any kind of
president with this case.
Chair Stockus noted that regardless of intent, it’s how the ordinance reads. There was more discussion on how each member reads and interprets the various sections of the ZO. Mr. Coronati noted that this is a good ordinance as it allows for fewer burdens to the Town for larger parcels like this due to the private roads and conservation of open space.
Chair Stockus noted that the 65 days the Board has to approve/deny this application is ending soon. Mr. Coronati noted that they do not have all there permits in, they still need the escrow account set up for the engineering review as well. The Board briefly discussed how to proceed with this case. Mr. Coronati stated that he believes that the final interpretation of the ZO is up to Mr. Colby. Mr. Bacon agreed that Mr. Colby’s interpretation was the next step in the process to keep this case moving forward.
Mr. Coronati noted that they still needed a few more weeks to complete all the State permitting processes.
MOTION by Mr. Davies to recess this case until the November 17, 2010 at 7:30pm meeting to allow time for the Code Administrator, Paul Colby to give his interpretation of the ZO section on frontage (Article VI C 1).
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
Mr. Anderson and Ms. Mooney clarified which section. Mr. Coronati asked if Mr. Colby had already done a compliance review and this should have been in that. There was discussion on if a compliance review had been done. Chair Stockus noted that the Board had asked Mr. Colby to do one but they did not have one to date. Mr. Coronati stated that he had thought Mr. Colby had already done one. Mrs. Sears confirmed that there was a memo for a completeness review by Mr. Colby in the file but there weren’t any memos for a compliance review from Mr. Colby in there.
Mr. Gylfphe suggested the applicant ask for a 45 day extension at the next meeting if they still don’t have all their permits.
VOTE 5-Aye. 1- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED at 9:08pm
The Board tabled the review of the minutes until more copies were available.
Conservation Commission- Update on Recent Property Monitoring
Ms. Mooney updated the Board on the monitoring of conservation easements at the Highlands development off Route 4. She noted the amount of time and effort required by the Conservation Commission members and their results. She noted that the Commission members would like to see the Town require some kind of Stewardship fund for the costs of monitoring the conservation easements like these in the future.
Ms. Mooney also noted that there is a Request for Bids posted for the costs of re-staking that easement in the Highlands. The estimate for this is about $4,000.
Review of 3rd Party Review form/New notices-Lisa Sears
Ms. Sears noted that she no longer needs these notices and will stick with the ones she already uses. The Board agreed that all notices should be the same.
They agreed to the Third Party review form will be corrected as noted and Mr. Bacon will add to the Subdivision Regulations when complete.
The Board will review the Voluntary Merger Form at a later date, due to the late hour.
NH RSA 676:4 I(b)/ SB 328
Ms. Mooney wanted to bring this new law to the attention to the Board. She noted that a project does not have to wait for permits for an approval. Chair Stockus agreed and noted that they can add a deadline to any conditional approval.
Old Business
The Board asked if Concrete Products of Londonderry had complied with their conditional approval. Mrs. Sears noted she had sent letters (certified and non certified) with no response other than the signed postal return card.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to investigate the delay in Concrete Products of Londonderry’s compliance with their conditional approval.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Anderson asked briefly about procedures, requesting studies and the approval processes of subdivisions. Mr. Bacon will develop a list of third party consultants the Board could use, if needed.
MOTION by Mr. Bacon to adjourn at 9:29pm
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Respectfully Submitted from notes provided by Rick Bacon,
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.
| 
