NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
March 23, 2011
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, Secretary; Gary Anderson, Selectmen’s Rep; John Morin; Robert “Buzz” Davies, Alternate Member; Cheryl Smith, Alt. Member (not seated)
PB Members Absent: Rick Bacon, Vice Chair; Peter Gylfphe; Traci Chauvey, Alt. Member.
Others Present: Joseph Falzone, Applicant; Frank Catapano, Applicant; Christian Smith, Engineer, Beals Associates; Judy Potkay, Realtor, Merry Hill; Paula True; Deb Stevens, Conservation Commission (CC); Celia Abrams, CC; Patty O’Brien; Scott Gove; Joanne Sachs Solomon, Applicant; Gloria LaBorin (?), Applicant; Ken Sachs, Applicant; Jason Pohopek, Surveyor; Jeff Merrill, Law Office, Jeffrey Merrill (Merry Hill); Sam Demeritt, CC.
Others Absent: Paul Colby, Building Inspector; Lisa Sears, Land Use Clerk.
Chair Stockus called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Introductions were made. Mr. Davies was seated for Mr. Gylfphe. Ms. Smith was present at the table but will not vote. This meeting was broadcast on Cable Channel 22. The Board tabled the minutes until after the public hearings. Chair Stockus read the first case.
Public Hearing(s)/Meeting(s)
Case #P11-02-SUB-An application from Harbor Street Limited Partnership for a 22-lot open space development subdivision (acceptance, compliance review, and final approval). 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.
Chair Stockus read the protocol for public hearings of this nature. Applicants speak first, the Board may ask questions, then attendees in favor may speak, then those in opposition, etc.: all questions are to be directed to the chair, conversations between attendees are not allowed. This meeting/hearing is for information gathering only.
Christian Smith, Engineer for Beals Associates, reviewed some of the development plans again briefly for the Board, (21 lot subdivision with a large open space component) and commented on issues that were outstanding at the last hearing. Again there was mention of drainage on the site, specifically that of Lot #1, and that the other (2) areas would be engineered to appropriately address storm runoff. They have requested a waiver and had spoken to John Fernald, Road Agent for Nottingham, and he was agreeable to a 20’ wide road surface rather than one 24’ wide within the development. Four-foot shoulders will be maintained on both sides. There would be 18” of compacted gravel at the development road curb cut, tapered down in both directions along Ledge Farm Road. Mr. Smith expected that Mr. Fernald would be
sending along a memo to the Board.
Mr. Smith indicated that they have not yet heard back from the Fire Chief, and he did not think that the plans had been reviewed yet.
Mr. Smith returned the check to Mr. Stockus for the escrow account that had been given to RCCD by mistake.
Mr. Smith indicated that the site specific soils were not depicted on the smaller (overall) sized plan (at 150 scale) but placed on the 60 scale plan.
There were no questions or comments from members of the Board nor from the audience.
Mr. Stockus read a letter received from Sam Demeritt, Conservation Commission Chair. The letter asked for area study documentation from the Natural Heritage Bureau re: protected species of interest, and also requested that as many large trees are preserved as possible.
Mr. Stockus asked if the Conservation Commission had comments about this matter. Ms. Mooney reported that the Commission had reviewed the plans at the last meeting and because there were no wetland impacts with the open space plan, it did not appear to be necessary to have an independent wildlife study conducted for this property. A report from the Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) would be sufficient.
Mr. Smith indicated that the NHB is contacted as a matter of course whenever an Alteration of Terrain permit request is submitted and that a report from the NHB has been received.
Mr. Stockus reported that the plans had been reviewed by the Fire Chief and he has received a memo of that review and that the applicants will be receiving a copy as well: Some comments from the Chief follow: that all residents be supplied with a sprinkler system, that there be safe passage for emergency vehicles into and out of the development; that there be a suitable water source for fire protection if the homes are not built with sprinkler systems; and that all of these items are to be documented on the final set of plans.
Ms. Smith commented that the town standards for fire protection state that roads are 24 feet wide and that a 20 foot road width, as asked for by waiver, with Mr. Fernald’s approval would be adequate for emergency vehicular traffic.
Mr. Stockus indicated that Mr. Fernald’s comments had been submitted to the Board that day (3/23). Mr. Fernald had “no problem” with the 20’ asphalt width, it would save the town money in maintenance. It might, however, establish precedence. He also made comments about grade and the roadbed. Mr. Stockus spoke with Mr. Fernald and asked about the road width and the cul-de-sac design. Mr. Fernald indicated he would defer to RCCD’s recommendations.
Mr. Smith commented that Ledge Farm Road itself is only 18 feet wide, and that the 20-foot road width proposed for the development would be more appropriate.
Mr. Stockus indicated that the review would not begin until the escrow account has been set up.
Mr. Stockus went over the subdivision review checklist for plan completeness and asked about the status of the subdivision application to the state. Mr. Smith replied that the application has not been submitted to the state at this time.
Ms. Mooney asked if this was an appropriate time to bring up additional questions from the Conservation Commission have. Given the go ahead, Ms. Mooney said that there were some matters on details re: the open space area that can be discussed later but the Commission was interested in how the open space would be accessed by the residents. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant and he were discussing a possible ROW easement between Lots 12 & 13, 10 feet wide, for pedestrian traffic only.
Mr. Stockus indicated that the Engineering and Compliance reviews would be done by RCCD.
This hearing was.
MOTION by Mr. Anderson to recess the hearing until April 13 at 7pm
SECOND by Ms. Mooney
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The applicants left the meeting.
Conceptual Review: Ken Sachs TM 71 & 72, Lots 150 & 137 for possible subdivision.
Mr. Ken Sachs stood and gave members of the Board hand drawn and colored sketches of the parcels, with road frontages and lake frontage included, to be discussed along with attached comments about the properties. He explained that his late parents had owned both properties and he and his sister (Joanne Solomon) are the heirs. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Sachs and his sister have decided to divide the properties between them. They are looking for a lot line adjustment between Lots 137 and 150 in order to add two more acres to Lot 137 and to subdivide off a new 20-acre parcel from Lot 150. These two actions would leave Lot 150 with 70 acres. There is an existing home on Lot 137 on a lot of four acres, at present. Mr. Sachs would continue to own the house with six acres (from the lot line adjustment) and the new 20-acre lot.
His sister would own the seventy-acre lot.
Mr. Sachs was concerned about the cost of surveying both parcels and had been told it would cost about $20,000. He asked if a survey was required for only a lot line adjustment.
Ms. Smith, Ms. Mooney and Mr. Anderson asked questions to clarify what was indicated on the sketch.
Mr. Davies commented about the elbow of the lot line adjustment line and thought that the Town preferred straight lines rather than sharp angles, and asked Mr. Sachs why the proposed line was drawn as indicated. Mr. Sachs had no reason other than the type of terrain that is in that area: the new line appeared to be drawn parallel to the existing line including the angle. Mr. Davies suggested that the lot line be drawn (straight) that follows the original lot line out to the road (Sachs Road).
Mr. Stockus indicated that these were two separate types of applications: A lot line adjustment and a subdivision. The former would not create any additional lots, but the latter would. And because three lots were being created out of two lots it would fall under the regulations of a minor subdivision. Mr. Sachs asked what the rules were re: a lot line adjustment only, specifically if a complete survey of the two properties were required. Board members looked through the Subdivision Regulations but could not find any reference to a lot line adjustment application at that time. Mr. Stockus apologized to the applicants and indicated that the last case that came before the Board was recommended on advice from the building inspector who was not present. Mr. Stockus asked the applicants if the conceptual review could be tabled
until the next Planning Board meeting so the Board could have a chance to research this matter. Mr. Sachs agreed.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to table the conceptual review until April 13.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
The applicants left the meeting.
Conceptual Review: Jason Pohopek, TM 4, Lot 4 for possible subdivision.
Jason Pohopek, licensed land surveyor, was representing the property owner, Dave Storey (not present), and was accompanied by Jeff Merrill, attorney for the project. Mr. Pohopek distributed blue survey plats to Board members (done by Landry Surveying, dated 1/14/2004). The review was for a proposed six lot subdivision on property of 13.2 acres along the east side of Merry Hill Road. Lot #6 would be in the commercial zone with frontage also along Route 4. Lot 5 has an existing house on it. Lots 4, 3, 2, & 1 would be close to two acres each with 200 feet of frontage on Merry Hill Road. All lots were rectangular shaped except a jog between 6 & 5 would leave lot 6 with 3.2 acres. A couple of test pits were done and the soils are satisfactory.
Questions from the Board were as follows:
What is the drainage pattern along Route 4? (A: Goes downhill):
All single family homes? (A. Yes.);
Are there any wetlands on the site? (A: At the corner of Lot 6 there are hydric soils along Route 4 due to drainage but no other wetlands were found on the proposed development site.);
When were lots 4-2 & 4-3 subdivided? (A: 2003);
What is the slope of Merry Hill Road along the proposed development? (A: rises to Lot 4 then decreases, no more than 25% slope);
Is there a stonewall that runs through Proposed Lot 1? (A: no, only a small segment each extending from the western and eastern lot lines.);
Given the small size of the lots is there any reason why there isn’t just a single angle point between lot 5&6? (A: “No reason, it was just the way I felt.”);
What is the acreage of the proposed lots? (A: two acres each. Lot 6 would be 3.2. “Most others are about two acres”.);
Would Lot 6 be accessed by Merry Hill or Route 4? (A: Not sure. It would depend if it was developed as commercial and then the State of NH DOT would determine what could be done along that stretch.
Mr. Stockus, hearing no other questions and objections from the Board, commented that the project looks “doable”.
The applicants left the meeting. The members of the Conservation Commission left the meeting.
Minutes of March 9, 2011:
Line 20, del “open seat” replace with “Mr. Canney”
Line 20, del “arrived” replace with “participated”
Line 54, del the 2nd “the” and replace with “a”
Line 54, Del “they are” and replace with “the applicant is”
Line 54, extend the sentence to continue, “rather than the 24 foot standard.”
Line 59, del “diameter” and replace with “turn radius”
Line 60, add “s” to “diameter” and continue to read “and turn radii”
Line 77, del “would like” and replace with “requested”
Line79, Capitalize “Review”
Line 97, correct spelling of “grammar”
Line 144, del “has” and replace with “have”
Line 152, contract “out line” to read “outline”
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to accept the minutes of March 9, 2011 as corrected.
SECOND by Mr. Davies
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Minutes of March 16, 2011:
Line 55, del “s” from “amendments”
Line 85, del “their” and replace with “the”
Line 87, add “s” to “subdivision”
Line 87, add “year’s” in between “this…town”
Line 100, del “sets of”
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to accept the minutes of March 16, 2011 as corrected.
SECOND by Mr. Anderson
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Signing of By-Laws:
Mr. Stockus noted that with the absence of the Land Use Clerk that the signing of the By-Laws would be postponed until the next meeting.
Impact Fees, Assessment Question:
Mr. Stockus read a email reply sent to Traci Chauvey from Bruce Mayberry, BCM Planning, LLC, dated March 17, 2011, re: questions the Board had about the exact timing of implementation of the fees on building projects. His reply was that fees were not adopted until the public hearing is held during which the planning board votes to accept the proposed fee schedule. Development proposals that have not been finally approved and recorded would be subject to the fee schedule. Construction of homes on already approved lots prior to the fee schedule adoption by the Board would have a four year exemption window provided that “active and substantial” (sic) development has taken place. Because these are legal issues, Mr. Mayberry suggested that the Board submit these questions and answers for review by land use counsel.
Ms. Chauvey has requested that Ms. Sears research and comprise a list of all approved subdivision applications within the last four years.
Mr. Anderson moved that the Board seek counsel’s opinion on these matters. Ms. Mooney seconded the motion. All votes were in favor.
Other Business:
Ms. Mooney indicated that the original Wednesday, April 20, date for a joint meeting with the Conservation Commission was not a good one for most Commission members. And in fact, most Wednesdays in the next several months were not available. A Thursday, April 7, date was good for at least five Commission members if the Board was okay with that date. Mr. Stockus polled the Board members and all were in agreement. Mr. Stockus will ask Ms. Chauvey to post the meeting and Ms. Mooney will contact the Commission members.
Ms. Mooney asked that the Master Plan Committee (MPC) be placed on the agenda in the near future so the MPC can bring the Board up to date with the progress that’s being made. Mr. Stockus indicated that April 27 would be appropriate. Ms. Mooney will let the MPC participants know.
Ms. Mooney and Ms. Smith discussed HB 409 that recently passed in the NH House. This bill amends the laws re: residents that may sit on different boards and commissions in a community. If this is passed by the Senate, then a member of a conservation commission may not serve on the planning board at the same time. Ms. Mooney noted that with one person working on both groups there has been increased communication and collaboration on several projects of common interest. Ms. Smith and Mr. Stockus both noted that this would be a problem with small communities such as Nottingham where getting enough volunteers for municipal group participation is often a problem.
Mr. Anderson stated that Workforce Housing is also being discussed in the House and there is a movement to make this program optional rather than required by communities.
MOTION by Ms. Mooney to adjourn at 8:38pm
SECOND by Mr. Morin
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Respectfully Submitted:
Susan P. Mooney, Secretary for
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.
| 
