NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
August 25, 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; Rick Bacon, Secretary; Gary Anderson, Selectmen’s Rep; Peter Gylfphe, Robert “Buzz” Davies, Alternate Member, Traci Chauvey, Alt. Member, Cheryl Smith, Alt. Member
PB Members Absent: Susan Mooney; Scott Canney;
Others Present: Lisa Sears; Land Use Clerk, Paul Colby, Building Inspector & Code Administrator; Joseph Coronati, Jones & Beach Engineers, Inc., Jeffrey & Marilyn Cole, Daniel Ryan, Tom Sweeney, Charlene Hemeon, Hartley Crantun, Mark West; West Environmental, Andrew Turas, Alan Bois, Judy Polkag
Chair Stockus called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 pm. This meeting was televised on cable access Channel 22. Ms. Chauvey was seated for Ms. Mooney. Mr. Davies was seated for Mr. Canney. Ms. Smith was seated for Ms. Mooney.
Review of Minutes
The review was postponed until after the public hearing but then later tabled.
Chair Stockus read the first case. (Both 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. Coronati stated that at the last meeting he had stated that he would not appear before the Board until he had all the items that are outstanding. He explained that he only has the results of the Wildlife Study. Mr. West, wetlands scientist and wildlife biologist, presented the results of the Study highlighting: Wetlands Assessment with Maps & Photos, Upland Plan Communities, Invasive Species, Wildlife Habitat Features, Endangered Species Habit and his recommendations (p. 28-29). Mr. West noted that he had already presented these findings to Mr. Coronati and the Nottingham Conservation Commission. They discussed how his findings changed the plans. A retention pond was moved closer to the road to allow for uplands around a vernal pool that Mr. West found (details in his report).
Mr. Coronati explained that Amy Clark at the State Alteration of Terrain considered the changes minor and could come under the original permit application. Mr. Bacon later asked for written confirmation of that.
Point of Order: Ms. Smith arrived during Mr. West’s presentation and was seated for the empty seat.
Mr. West noted that his recommendation was that the conservation areas/open areas be part of the Home Owner’s Association and deed restrictions and there is further detail of his wording recommendations in his report. The Board had no further questions for Mr. West.
Mr. Coronati stated that they still did not have the wetlands permit for the Giles side of the project. He noted that Giles has made their payment for the escrow account. He asked if the Howards had made their payment yet. Mrs. Sears noted that they have made another $25 payment towards the past due bill for the third party review but had not come in or sent in any kind of payment for their escrow account. Mrs. Sears confirmed that RCCD can’t start on the Giles review without the Howards and they can’t start Howards review until the escrow payment is made.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess this hearing to September 22, 2010 at 7:15pm.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
Ms. Chauvey expressed her concerns about the outstanding bill that the applicant is making $25 payments on, plus the $1,936 needed for the escrow account for the engineering review with RCCD. She noted that at $25 per month it would take 7.5 years to pay that, and approval can’t be given until all payments are made. She noted that if the case can’t move forward then the case should be dismissed. They discussed deadlines and what they want from the applicant. She suggested amending the motion to include a deadline for proof that payment can be made. Mr. Gylfphe suggested asking Mr. Howard to appear before the Board, noting that that application has “proceeded quite a ways.”
Ms. Chauvey agreed noting the case started in 2007 and here it is 2010. She wanted the case to move forward with definite deadlines. Chair Stockus suggested amending the motion requiring the Howards to attend. Ms. Chauvey agreed and asked that they come with “some kind of financial plan or guarantee”. She also question if the applicant could come up with the required bonding for the roads before approvals.
Mr. Bacon suggested that a third party can provide the Bond. Mr. Davies noted that their needs to be a financial plan and not a discussion. Ms. Chauvey noted it can’t be based on just their word.
Mr. Coronati noted that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Howard, and Mr. Howard is aware and is in the process of securing the funds needed to finish the project. There was some discussion on the Bonding process.
Motion to Amend by Mr. Gylfphe: to require Mr. Howard to come before the Board on Sept. 22nd to present his required financial plan; including how he will establish the escrow account, pay the outstanding bills and furnish the required bond. Seconded by Ms. Smith
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Motion as Amended: VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Chair Stockus called the next case and he read the contents of the case file including the public notice:
Case # P10-04- SIT: 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 was representing the Hemeons. Also present were the builders of the project Jeff & Marilyn Cole of JC Builders.
Chair Stockus explained the procedures of the hearing. Mr. Coronati presented an overview of the project including a brief review of the plans. He noted that the project has a large amount of undeveloped area in the rear of the property. He also noted that the driveway location changed to allow for the steep slope. He noted how the plan differed from when he last came before the Board in the conceptual review stage. He confirmed that they meet all setback and septic, well, parking, slope requirements. He reviewed the proposed driveway in detail noting guard rails and slopes. He also noted that there was no impact to wetlands. 13.25 acres of open space that will not allow for further development and that will be noted in the home owners’ association documents/deed.
Mr. Coronati noted they still need the State subdivision and septic approvals and the State DOT driveway permit. He then discussed the slopes, drainage and architecture of the buildings. He continued to review the plans in detail then the Chair called for questions from the Board. Mr. Davies asked if the road was paved. Mr. Bacon asked why the location of the driveway changed. Mr. Coronati noted it was pavement and explained the slope of the land and the locations of the buildable area dictated the need to move the driveway.
Ms. Smith asked about possibly using impervious surface for the driveway. Again, Mr. Coronati explained that he would not recommend it for this project due to slopes and drainage issues.
Ms. Chauvey asked the Board if the Board wanted to send this application out for a completeness review, were they happy with what was submitted and if they would be voting to accept it as complete tonight. Chair Stockus asked that Ms. Chauvey hold on her questions until after the general presentation was complete.
Mr. Gylfphe asked about the number of existing wells and the plans don’t have well radii noted on them. It was noted that only one well is functioning. A brief discussion was on well depth, and well production in that general area.
Mr. Anderson wanted to confirm that the Home Owners Association (HOA) of maintenance of the culverts. Mr. Coronati agreed that the HOA would be responsible for everything. Mr. Bacon asked about septic system design and was answered by the builders. Mr. Coronati also noted all test pit were done on the site.
Ms. Chauvey expressed concern that the Board was discussing/reviewing this application before the Board had voted to accept it; she read sections of the Planning Board Handbook from NH Office of Energy and Planning. Chair Stockus stated that they were reviewing the proposal and it’s being presented for the first time and our review for acceptance has not started yet. He called for further questions, and then he called for proponents of the project. Chair Stockus read an email from Michael Tappe & Patricia Carr (abutters at 98R Old Turnpike Road) that stated they had “no problem” with the plans.
Chair Stockus called for opponents. Daniel Ryan, 33 Revolutionary Way, noted that he shares the property line with the project and has frontage on Route 4. He claimed to be the abutter most directly impacted by the proposal. He had concerns about headlights coming into his home as cars enter the property in the new driveway location. He also expressed concerns for noise and safety. He requested specific evergreen trees or fencing to screen the lights from his kitchen and bedrooms. There was additional discussion on the relocation of the driveway and site distances. They estimated that it is about 100’ from Mr. Ryan’s home and the driveway and property line and the type of existing trees/screening. Mr. Ryan noted his concern again for the headlights in his home, noise and light pollution, safety and his families’ general quality of life. He also noted he was not opposed to development when it has no negative impact on others.
Mr. Coronati stated that the angles of the cars light are the only ones turning in from the east. He also noted that the proposed guardrail is at the same elevation of the headlights. He didn’t think a fence would help but offered to look at trees or other screening methods as long as it didn’t interfere with State requirements (sightlines). There was a detail discussion on types of trees that would and wouldn’t work on this area, and the grading of the site and location of the buildings and what kind of turning radius is allowed for a driveway/road.
Mr. Anderson stated he would like to know the actual distance to Mr. Ryan’s home. Chair Stockus noted that a site walk will be scheduled for this case.
Ms. Chauvey asked who was going to determine if the application was complete. The Chair asked that Mr. Colby and Mr. Bacon do the completeness and the compliance review for this case. Rockingham County Conservation District will do the engineering review. Chair Stockus added that there wasn’t enough information tonight to vote on completeness. They briefly touched on requirements in the Site Plan Review Regulations.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess this case to September 22, 2010 at 8:00pm
SECOND by Mr. Bacon
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The Board will schedule a site walk after the application is accepted and will be determined at a public meeting, no additional notice is required or will be given to abutters via US mail.
Point of Order: The Board took a 5 minute recess.
New/Old Business
Open position/ Vice Chair
MOTION by Mr. Bacon to nominate Peter Gylfphe to fill the Vice Chair position until elections in March 2011.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Current Invoices
The Board agreed to pay the current invoice for Mettee planning after they confirmed the details.
MOTION by Ms. Smith to pay Mettee Planning Associates Invoice dated August 23, 2010 for $2,850.00.
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Subcommittee Appointments
Ms. Chauvey noted that there have been changes to the Impact Fee Study Steering Committee (IFSSC) as it is made up from representatives from other committees and those committees change. In the end the Board didn’t believe they needed to appoint new members. The Subcommittees will just notify the Board of changes.
Application Procedures
Ms. Chauvey wanted to the Board to add a review of proper procedure for the application/public hearing/public meeting topic to next week’s workshop. The Board agreed. She was concerned and wanted the Board to be more efficient with members’ time. The Board asked that Mrs. Sears contact Local Government Center for their opinion as well. The Board will review the OEP Handbook before next week.
Subdivision Application Part I –final review
The Board made two minor changes and agreed Mrs. Sears could begin to use this new application once edited.
MOTION by Mr. Bacon to approve with minor edits the new Subdivision Application for use.
SECOND by Mr. Gylfphe
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Colby reviewed the number of building permits to date and noted no legislative updates.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to adjourn
SECOND by Chair Stockus
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.
| 
