NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
November 18, 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;; Gary Anderson, Selectmen’s Rep, Robert “Buzz” Davies, Alternate Member, Cheryl Smith, Alt. Member, Traci Chauvey, Alt. Member
PB Members Absent: Susan Mooney, Scott Canney
Others Present: Lisa Sears, Land Use Clerk, Joseph Coronati, Jones & Beach Engineering, Daniel Ryan, Thomas Sweeney, Marilyn & Jeffrey Cole; JC Builders, Robert Graves; Bear Hill Forrest Services, LLC
Chair Stockus called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm. Ms. Chauvey was seated for the open seat, and Ms. Smith was seated for Ms. Mooney. 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 until after the public hearings.
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 told the Board that the owner’s are still looking for investor’s for the project. He asked for another 30 day extension. Mr. Davies asked to have the previous motions, allowing the last extension, be read.
Mrs. Sears read motions and sections from the minutes of:
August 25, 2010: Amended Motion by Mr. Gylfphe: to require Mr. Howard 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.
September 22, 2010: Mr. Coronati noted that both the wetlands permit and the State subdivision permit are still outstanding for the Giles half of the project. He explained that the wetlands permit has involved more agencies due to the wetlands impact. He believes that both permits should be completed within 60 days.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess this public hearing until November 17, 2010 at 7:15pm. SECOND by Ms. Mooney
Mr. Gylfphe noted that he doesn’t believe that this project should not go beyond 90 days at most.
Mrs. Sears also noted that the applicant had been before the Board on 26 times in the three years since this project started on August 15, 2007. Mr. Coronati acknowledged that the permits are not complete because the applicant held off on everything hoping for an investor to take over and allow time for those potential investors to get road estimates for the project.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to deny the case(s) because it has been before Board for three years, there is still no financial plan, there is an outstanding bill for Mettee Planning Associates, no monies submitted for the escrow account for the required engineering review, and if the property is sold the new developer should not be given the right to come under the old subdivision regulations (as this project has been allowed to do).
SECOND by Mr. Bacon
Mr. Gylfphe amended the Motion noting that the denial is “without prejudice”. Mr. Davies asked what the “without prejudice” means, Mr. Gylfphe explained that it means that there is no judgment against the people or the developers so that it can be resubmitted in the future. Mrs. Sears explained that it means that you are not judging if the project is good or bad. Mr. Gylfphe added that he was denying it due to lack of finances and lack of progress on the project.
SECOND the Amendment by Ms. Smith.
VOTE on the Amendment 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Davies noted that the Zoning Ordinances have changed a lot since this project was originally submitted. Ms. Smith agreed and noted that it potentially could come back in as an Open Space Development project. Mr. Davies agreed and added that if it did, it could have reduced roads and therefore be less costly to develop.
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Point of Order: Later in the meeting, Ms. Chauvey wanted to make sure the record was very clear that the “denial without prejudice” of this Howard/Giles case did not mean that anyone refilling for this project/property would not have to pay any fees, she wanted it clear that all fees will apply. The Board agreed.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to close the public hearing for the Howard/Giles cases.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 7-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
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.
Chair Stockus noted that the last meeting ended with the Board asking the Code Administrator for his decision on the frontage issue originally brought up by Mr. Davies. Chair Stockus read the memo from Mr. Colby (Date November 16, 2010-RE: Cole Site Plan Frontage question):
- The basis of the frontage requirement is to recognize that for multifamily development a reduced frontage is agreeable.
- That the Town of Nottingham did not anticipate a large number of multifamily development applications.
- The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is that each building in a multi family development shall have three hundred (300) feet of frontage. I base this on the fact that under single-family development to site two (2) separate dwelling units on a single lot the minimum frontage shall be four hundred (400) feet, (Article VI Section C Dwelling Units on Single Tracts).
- Based on the three (3) factors above I believe that the total frontage for this proposed project shall be at a minimum fourteen hundred (1400) feet. Three hundred (300) feet for each duplex and two hundred (200) feet for the existing single-family dwelling. Review of the proposed project exhibits a deficiency of nine hundred fifty-eight (958) feet of frontage.
Based on this interpretation the applicant needs to seek relief from the Nottingham Board of Adjustment or offer an alternative to satisfy the frontage requirement.
Chair Stockus called for comments from the Board on Mr. Colby’s letter. There was none. The Board did discuss how the case should proceed; possibly recess and allow them to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a decision.
Mr. Coronati noted that they would prefer not to go to the ZBA and added that is why they appeared before this Board, for a conceptual hearing, back on May 5, 2010. He noted that the Coles have proceeded with this project, its engineering costs and purchasing the property based on the advice given to them, by this Board, at the May meeting, now 3 months later and with State subdivision approval, septic approvals, and close to DOT approvals they are facing a possible denial. Mr. Coronati noted that at this late date they thought they would be facing a much different vote for this project.
Mr. Coronati noted that the ordinance and definition allow the Board some flexibility. He noted that if they do have to go to ZBA does the project have the Boards support. Mr. Coronati discussed the other ways this project could go without having to go to the ZBA but this plan was a better use of the land. Mr. Coronati also noted that they could also have the driveway become a Town road, but the applicant didn’t want that for the Town. Chair Stockus stated he didn’t believe driveway/road could meet Town specifications due to the slopes.
Chair Stockus noted that he didn’t believe any of the Board members object to the concept of the project but the frontage issue arose after the details of the project came about. Discussion was on alternate plans and if the Board would support their efforts with the ZBA.
Mr. Davies noted he has always had concern how the existing single family home fits into the project and that he has never gotten a satisfying answer to it. Mr. Coronati stated he wished that Mr. Davies’ question had been brought up a little stronger in the beginning of the project. Mr. Davies noted that the first time he brought it up he was told by Mr. Colby the single family home gets rolled into the condo idea but his review of the ZO is it doesn’t fit.
Mr. Coronati noted that their thoughts on the single family were why tear it down to turn around and build another unit with the same square footage. He again asked for the Board to support the project if they go to the ZBA.
Mr. Davies noted that as a Board they needed to decide how they were going to apply Mr. Colby’s interpretation of the ZO. Mr. Bacon noted that he would rather see the duplexes than 2 four unit buildings. Mr. Gylfphe noted he preferred the duplexes with the conservation area for this property.
Upon Ms. Chauvey’s request, Mr. Davies explained his concerns for the frontage, his interpretation and how he arrived at them. He apologized that it had taken him this long to come to these conclusions.
Mr. Cole noted that this project has cost him approximately $200,000 so far. He reviewed the history of the project, and that he has done everything the Board has asked so far, regardless of cost. He asked the Board how it could go this far. He also noted he lives in Nottingham and has a good reputation as a local builder and wants to do a quality project.
Ms. Chauvey agreed that it should have been raised earlier but also noted that now that it is raised the Board could not ignore the regulations. Mr. Coronati again asked for support for the project, with the ZBA. They all discussed the alternate concepts for the property, without having to go before the ZBA. Mr. Bacon noted that the proposed concept is still a multifamily development even though there is a single family home with duplexes and that he preferred the proposed development over some of the alternate plans the applicant could do without having to go before the ZBA.
Ms. Chauvey stated she would rather see the duplexes as well, but did have an issue with the single family home. Mr. Coronati noted that the single family home is a condo unit that would match the other units.
Mr. Cole noted the alternate plan of two 4 unit buildings would be less expensive to build but he wanted to build the four 2 unit buildings with the single family unit because it was better quality project and a better fit for the property and town.
MOTION by Mr. Gylfphe to recess this hearing for 60 days to send the applicant to the ZBA, along with a letter from the Planning Board supporting the project as proposed.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
Mr. Davies again noted Mr. Colby’s #3 on his letter with his opinion that each building needs three hundred feet of frontage. Mr. Davies reminded the Board that if they support the proposed project as is, then that is against the ZO of the Town. Mr. Gylfphe and Mr. Anderson noted that this section of the ZO needs to be looked at and possibly revised at a later date.
Ms. Smith noted that she doesn’t agree with all of Mr. Colby’s interpretation of the ZO. Discussion continued on alternate plans, and what a multifamily was, and how much reduced frontage the applicant will have to get a variance for from the ZBA.
Mr. Coronati stated that he had spoken to Mr. Colby today, and if they do three 3 unit buildings then they would not have to go before the ZBA. Mr. Davies and Ms. Chauvey disagreed citing Mr. Colby’s own letter.
Discussion was on the definitions of Multifamily and Duplexes and if Duplexes come under Multifamily. Discussion was also on what Frontage was and if there were a Town Road they could even put single family homes on the property, but the applicant didn’t want to do that. Mr. Bacon agreed again stating he preferred the proposed duplexes over the alternate concepts. Mr. Bacon noted he has disagreed with Mr. Davies’ and Mr. Colby’s interpretations of the ZO and doesn’t believe that this applicant needs to go before the ZBA. Ms. Chauvey agreed but noted she was not comfortable not having the applicant go before the ZBA because the difference in the interpretations of the ZO was too great.
Mr. Bacon suggested that if they go before the ZBA, he suggested asking for a variance in building style (units) not for reduced frontage.
Ms. Smith noted the concept of multifamily housing on reduced frontage was to do exactly what the applicant has done; housing units and open space areas. She noted that she agrees with Mr. Bacon and not Mr. Colby’s interpretation of the ZO and doesn’t believe this applicant needs to go before the ZBA.
Mr. Cole noted that Mr. Colby was the first person they consulted and asked what they could do with this land and that he was the one who had suggested how and what to do with this property since the very beginning.
Mr. Sweeney suggested the Board consult a lawyer for an opinion on the ZO. He also had an issue with the Planning Board sending a letter to influence any possible ZBA case.
Chair Stockus restated the Motion and asked for a second. Ms. Chauvey seconded it but there was already a second by Mr. Anderson, previously.
Mr. Ryan stated he agreed with Mr. Sweeney. He suggested Mr. Colby be allowed to come before the Board for his opinion in person. Ms. Smith noted it is the current ZO that is up for interpretation. She suggested a planner give the Board an opinion. Ms. Chauvey agreed if the Board has a professional opinion that it be a planner not an attorney but she agreed with Mr. Bacon and didn’t think they needed someone to look at it.
Mr. Gylfphe explained the Board has sent applicants to the ZBA with letters of recommendations before. Mr. Coronati agreed stating that they would be asking for a variance to build something better than what is currently allowed in the ZO. Discussion again was on what to ask the ZBA for, and if the single family home was a home or a detached condo unit on a common lot, and weather the single family home needed 200’ of frontage or if it was just another unit and didn’t need the 200’ of frontage.
Point of Order: Mr. Davies recused himself from the vote and stepped down from the Board.
Mr. Gylfphe restated his motion, adding that they are going to the ZBA for reduced frontage per Mr. Colby’s letter. Mr. Cole suggested that Mr. Colby be present to explain his positions on the case, noting that his letter is not how he had explained this to him at the unset of this project.
VOTE 0-Aye. 6- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION FAILED.
MOTION by Mr. Bacon to recess the hearing to Dec 8, 2010 at 7:15pm and ask that Mr. Colby be present before any more decisions are made on Mr. Colby’s interpretations.
The discussion was on how the timeline of the 65 days in which the Board is required to make a decision will run out and if they needed another opinion or not. Ms. Chauvey stated she didn’t think they need one and that the Board needed to read it and determine their own opinions on what they think the ZO means. Mr. Bacon agreed with Ms. Chauvey and noted that even though he made the motion to allow Mr. Colby to come in and explain he personally believes the Board can just move forward with this case. Ms. Chauvey agreed.
Mr. Bacon withdrew his motion.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to recess this case to December 8, 2010 at 7:15pm and ask Mr. Colby to be present and Board members to come prepared with their own interpretations of the ZO and to extend the case beyond the required 65 days decision time frame for an additional 60 days.
SECOND by Mr. Bacon
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Mr. Gylfphe noted that this issue is corrected in the new proposed, reformatted ZO that they have been working on this year. Mr. Coronati asked about Mr. Davies recusal. Mr. Davies clarified that he had recused himself from this case altogether not just from tonight’s discussion.
MOTION by Mr. Bacon to close the public hearing for this case.
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Point of Order: Mr. Davies returned to the Board at 8:10pm. Mr. Gylfphe left the meeting at approximately 8:17pm.
Review of Minutes
October 6, 2010
Line 106 change build to built
Line 140 change profession to professional
MOTION by Mr. Anderson to approve the amended minutes for October 6, 2010.
SECOND by Mr. Bacon
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 1- Abstained MOTION PASSED
October 21, 2010
Line 29 delete to
Line 32 delete type
Line 56 change that to with
Line 58 change locations to location
MOTION by Mr. Bacon to approve the amended minutes for October 21, 2010.
SECOND by Mr. Davies
VOTE 4-Aye. 0- Opposed 2- Abstained MOTION PASSED
During the review of the minutes, Mr. Davies explained his reason for his recusal earlier in the meeting. He explained that if the Cole project is approved it could put Mr. Davies in a position to benefit financially. He added that even though he is not personally in favor of the project he added that he didn’t believe he could be fair and impartial for this case. Ms. Chauvey added that Mr. Davies was admirable in doing so.
Other Business/Correspondence
2011 Budget issue
Mrs. Sears asked the Board if further action was needed on the questions raised by the Budget Committee to Mr. Brown, per the email she had forwarded to them. Ms. Chauvey noted that she had spoken to Mr. Brown in regards to the line item for the impact fee, noting it was a contract that could be encumbered. Chair Stockus will contact Mr. Brown for the same issue for the planning line for Mr. Mettee’s contract.
Invoice(s)
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to approve the invoice (dated October 21, 2010) from BCM Planning for work completed to date on the impact fee ordinance for $1,327.50.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Conservation Commission-Conservation easements: monitoring, signage, update on North River area, Possible Stewardship Fund, Possibly adding “habitat study” to Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Smith gave the Board an update on the conservation properties in the North River area, she reviewed the map of the area and who owns each one, and how much frontage on the river each one has, and what the tax dollars lost if the properties should become Town owned.
The total tax dollars lost to the Town would be $2,410.02. There is a total of 21, 598’ (4.1 miles) of river frontage will be conserved by the end of 2011, 1.5 miles of this includes both sides of the river. She stated that it is almost a third of the river frontage would be preserved at a minimal cost to the Town and that these properties are of high value and would fall under the Shoreline Protection Act as well. She added that they are looking for Planning Board support on this.
MOTION by Mr. Bacon to support the Conservation Commission’s plan to acquire these properties.
SECOND by Ms. Chauvey
VOTE 6-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Ms. Smith also supported Ms. Mooney in asking the Planning Board require set up a stewardship fund on the part of future developments/developers that would help pay for the costs of monitoring of these town owned easements. She reviewed the process and costs of the recent Highlands monitoring done by the Conservation Commission.
They also would like the Board’s support in requiring wildlife studies done by qualified professionals on major subdivisions and putting that in the Town’s Subdivision Regulations.
Possible Cell Towers Ordinance
Chair Stockus noted that Ms. Mooney would like the Board to review a potential Cell Tower Ordinance. It was noted that although important there wasn’t time to accomplish that this year. Ms. Smith suggested that this topic move up high on the list. Mr. Bacon added that there is potentially only one area in town that is cell tower worthy according to Mr. Colby and that is in the Square area of Town. There was a brief discussion on a sample ordinance in Newmarket.
Mr. Bacon would like more research or examples from other towns before making any motions to add these items to the Subdivision Regulations. He noted that he wasn’t against these issues but just wanted it done correctly. Ms. Chauvey added that for the stewardship fund she would like to know, where does the money come from and who will maintain it, etc. Ms. Smith agreed to provide additional research on these issues and present it to the Board at a future meeting.
New Zoning Ordinance Format
Chair Stockus noted that Mr. Bacon, Ms. Mooney and himself had meet with Mr. Mettee and had reviewed the new format, noting there still seems to be issues with it. Mr. Bacon added that he will be reviewing it again when Mr. Mettee sends it to him, then he will forward to the Board and he can then work on the Subdivision Regulations that have been on hold waiting for these revisions. The Board will review the final document on December 8th meeting and then it can go to Counsel for review before the public hearings in January.
Impact Fee Study Steering Committee-Update-Traci Chauvey
Ms. Chauvey noted that there were minor changes at the last meeting. The Committee needs to finalize which fee schedule to recommend but everything else was complete including the ordinance, the school methodologies, and the fire department methodologies. She noted that the recreation methodologies were not complete but they are working on their needs assessment now, it should be completed shortly after the new year.
Ms. Chauvey added that Mr. Russo and Mr. Mayberry were presenting Impact Fees to the School Board tonight. The ordinance will be going off to the Attorney for review before presenting to voters at the public hearings. She will also be writing an article for the January newsletter and the committee will be holding an additional educational meeting in January.
MOTION by Ms. Chauvey to adjourn at 9:02pm
SECOND by Ms. Smith
VOTE 6-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.
| 
