TOWN OF FARMINGTON
PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY - January 15, 2008
356 Main Street - Farmington, NH
Members Present: Chairman Charlie King, Hiram Watson, David Kestner, Paul Parker, Don MacVane,
Jim Horgan, Alternates Gerry Gibson and Cindy Snowdon.
Selectmen's Rep: Marty Gilman (left at 7:48 pm) and Joan Funk (arrived at 7:48pm)
Staff Present: Daniel Merhalski, Director of Planning and Community Development,
Fire Chief Richard Fowler
Public Present: Annie Plummer, Kathy Seawards, Cathy Place, Raymond Zahn, Dawn Zahn, Robin Place, David Holcomb, Donna Thibault, Serge Dostie, Ryan Jackson, Gerald White, Emily Titus, Jason Saucier, Eric Martin, Ellen Martin, Jim Spaulding, Donna Coyner, Brett Coyner, S. Diepree, Darlene Joyal, Ken Watson, Scott St. Peter, Holly St. Peter, Packy Campbell, Nancy York, Holly Darr, Chris Berry, Larry Zampieri, Attorney Jim Shannon, Attorney Tim Bates, Everett Hastings, Dan Rhodes, Dick Colby, Rob Seaward, Alicia Stickley, Mrs. Sullivan, and Bill Snowdon.
Chairman King called the meeting to order at 6:12pm, noting they were a few minutes late getting started due to technical difficulties.
Business Before the Board
1. Review and approve Meeting Minutes of 11/20/07, 12/04/07 and 12/18/07.
A. Paul Parker motioned to accept the minutes of 11/20/07 as amended to note corrections made
by Dan Merhalski, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with David Kestner, Marty Gilman and Jim Horgan abstaining because they were not present for the meeting.
B. Charlie King motioned to accept the 12/4/07 minutes as amended to reflect changed identified
by Dan Merhalski, 2nd David Kestner. Motion carried with Marty Gilman and Don MacVane abstaining because they were not present for the meeting.
C. Paul Parker motioned to accept the 12/18/07 minutes as amended to reflect the changes cited
by Dan Merhalski, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with Jim Horgan, Marty Gilman and Don MacVane abstaining because they were not present for the meeting.
2. Charlie King motioned to go in non-public discussion with town counsel, 2nd Don MacVane. Motion
carried with all in favor. Cindy Snowdon recused herself from the discussion.
The Board went in non-public discussion at 6:18pm and reconvened at 6:44pm.
Page 1 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:44 P.M.
Continued Cases:
There were no continued cases for deliberation by the Planning Board for this meeting.
New Cases:
• Application for a 2-lot subdivision By : Larry Zampieri (Tax Map R49, Lot #15), Property located on Trotting Park Road, in the (RR) Rural Residential Zoning District: Parcel is 4.38 acres; Presented by Berry Surveying and Engineering - Chris Berry.
Chris Berry passed out revised plans based on the 4-5 changes yielded at the TRC meeting. Mr. Berry explained that the application is to subdivide the parcel in 1/2 to create two duplex sites with 2-acre lots and 250' of footage. He explained that the applicant has applied for a driveway permit but has yet to receive approval. Mr. Berry also stated he addressed all the drainage issues by doing a small drainage analysis, noting that topographically the site is a bowl and that the drainage will only be increased by a small amount with the development and should dissipate quietly. A drainage easement has been provided to the town per request and the wording for the utility easement is currently being worked on, plus they did receive state subdivision approval. Lastly, Mr. Berry explained that there is a small Class
III wetland in the rear of the parcel but they are proposing no impacts within 300 feet of it.
1. Dan stated that the proposed right of way access is only 25 feet wide between the two developments but the Road and Driveway Design Standards require there be 36 feet. Chris replied that there is plenty of room to add the additional feet and he will do that.
2. Dan commented that the grade of the driveway is 8% going down to the first duplex site, which is rather steep though he only sees drainage proposed on one side of the driveway. Dan asked if there was a study completed to show this will be appropriate. Mr. Berry responded that they didn't view this as a concern because the applicant provided a swale to prevent drainage from sheeting down to the development on the roadside. Dan asked for the drainage count reports and Mr. Berry replied he would forward them.
3. Dan commented that the proposed development is within 1.5 miles of the school and therefore a pedestrian way between the two duplexes is required. Mr. Berry replied that there is a shoulder provided and they feel it is adequate.
4. Dan questioned if there is any proposal to prevent contamination of the subsurface area by vehicles stored on the site. Mr. Berry explained that they did not feel it was necessary.
5. Hiram stated that there is a requirement of 40,000 square feet of contiguous uplands and Mr. Berry pointed them out for him on the plan.
6. Marty stated that he is only concerned that there is no sidewalk proposed.
Page 2 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
7. Charlie stated he is concerned that the drainage easement needs to be completed. Charlie questioned where the 8% grade in the driveway stops in relationship to the turn. Mr. Berry replied in ends in the radius of the turn.
8. David stated he is concerned with snowplowing issues on the turn in the driveway and questioned what they are proposing for garbage disposal. Mr. Berry replied that the applicant is not proposing a dumpster but that the residents can bring their trash to the town dump. David asked if the applicant is proposing a silt fence indefinitely and Mr. Berry replied no just during construction. David questioned if there is any run-off treatment proposed and Mr. Berry replied that they discussed creating a treatment grass swale on the outside of the property by the road. David questioned if there are any proposed elevations for the buildings. Mr. Berry replied they have one septic approval, which yields about 343 for sill height, and the other lot should be identical in height.
9. Paul stated he is concerned with the lack of a dumpster because there are 4 residencies proposed and also the lack of a sidewalk. Paul then questioned if the 8% grade on the driveway goes towards the homes or away. Mr. Berry replied the grade goes towards the homes but he can propose an inlet that can make the drainage cross the road.
Chairman Charlie King opened the meeting to the public for comment on this application.
10. Larry Zampieri, applicant, stated that the property has been mined for 15 years and that there is a man-made swale already present. He added that the lay of the land is not going to be changed and that the proposed driveway has already been there for 20 years.
11. Everett Hastings, immediate abutter, explained that the parcel is often full of water and the applicant is planning to build up the road and he is concerned that doing that will create a further drainage issue into his basement. David questioned how much water has Mr. Hastings noticed in the "pit"? Mr. Hastings replied he is not sure of the exact measurement but that he certainly would not attempt to walk through it with just his shoes on.
Chairman Charlie King closed the public portion of the hearing.
12. Dan noted that he would like the applicant to come back so he has time to address the concerns of the Board and the abutters. Mr. Berry commented that he is "baffled" because the lot is a gravel pit and he is not sure of what other documentation to provide about the drainage. Mr. Berry noted that he is willing to widen the shoulder for the pedestrian access, provide the two easements, widen the driveway to 36' and add a drainage swale. Dan noted that he needs time to review the changes and make recommendations there of.
Don MacVane motioned to continue the application for a 2-lot subdivision by Larry Zampieri (Tax Map R49, Lot #15) to February 5, 2008, 2nd Jim Horgan. Motion carried with all in favor.
David Kestner motioned for a five-minute recess, 2nd Jim Horgan. Motion carried at 7:25pm.
Meeting reconvened at 7:37pm.
Page 3 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
• Compliance Hearing: For previously approved cluster subdivision By: RSA Development, LLC, for compliance with the terms of the approved cluster subdivision decisions and related plans for the property off of Elm Street/ Dick Dame Lane, (Tax Map U-9, Lots 18 & 19 and Tax Map R34, Lots 1-8): Located in the (SR) Suburban Residential Zoning District., The project consists of sixty (60) single family dwelling units.
Cindy Snowdon was not seated but it was noted that she recused herself from all discussions regarding this hearing.
Dan Merhalski did a power point presentation regarding the issues of compliance, noting the applicant is already aware of them all. There were a total of 28 outstanding items on record as of 10/22/07 and since 6 have been completed, leaving 22 items for compliance. The items outstanding are;
1. A utility pole with streetlight is to be installed at the end of Sky View Drive at the corner of the emergency access way, per the approved set of plans.
2. Two additional streetlights are to be installed on the utility poles, per the approved set of plans.
3. The designated "graded play area", "15' wide graded access to the play area", and the "temporary
settlement basin" have not been constructed. They should be constructed per the approved set of plans. - Note: the item is underway, but not completed.
4. From the entrance of the subdivision to the intersection of Whippoorwill Ridge Road, the sidewalks
are not completed and bituminous curbing is not completed. They should be installed per the approved set of plans.
5. The hammerhead driveway at the entrance to the subdivision is not constructed per the plans. The
catch basin is in the driveway and the pipe structure crossing the roadway is not where it is located on the plans. This should be corrected or a request should be made to the planning board for an amendment to the approved set of plans.
6. The street sign for Sky View Drive needs to be installed and the granite curbing near the location
should be repaired.
7. The "protection outlet" near lots 49/50 for the drainage outflow pipe is not constructed per the approved set of plans. It should be rip rapped.
8. The "protection outlet" near lots 46/47 for the drainage outflow pipe is not constructed per the
approved set of plans. It should be rip rapped.
9. The detention basin behind lots 50 and 51 is not constructed per the plans. There are also three (3)
retaining walls that have been constructed that are not in the plans. They should be inspected for safety by a licensed engineer and a request should be made to the Planning Board for an amendment to the approved set of plans.
Page 4 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
10. Two (2) catch basins and the connecting pipe have not been constructed between lots 55 and 56. They should be installed per the approved set of plans, or a request for an amendment to the approved set of plans should be made to the planning board.
11. An additional catch basin has been installed at the corner of Sky View Drive and Whippoorwill
Ridge Road. While this should not have any negative impact on drainage in the subdivision, it should be recorded (with the attached piping) and approved by the planning board on a revised set of plans.
12. There are a number of additional street lights installed on the utility poles along Sky View Drive and
Whippoorwill Ridge Road. While these are not detrimental to the subdivision, they should be recorded on a revised set of plans and approved by the planning board. They are located adjacent to the following lots: 44/45, 39/40, 7/8 and 11/12.
13. The final coat of paving must be laid on Whippoorwill Ridge Road.
14. Two (2) "Do Not Enter" signs must be installed at the ends of the emergency access way, per the approved set of plans.
15. Condition of Approval #3: All proposed roadway, drainage and water/sewer improvements shall be
reviewed and approved by the town engineer and applicable town personnel. The as-built plans
should be reviewed and approved for compliance with the required departments.
16. Condition of Approval #4: Proposed private roadways shall be built in accordance with town
standards. This should be verified by the applicant in writing with the Department of Public Works
and documentation submitted to the planning department.
17. Condition of Approval #7: Ownership of Common Area - All open space common area shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Conveyance of development rights to the Town for all common lands is required. Limited development may be allowed in the open space common area for recreational uses that are clearly subordinate to the development. Legal review and approval of all relevant documents shall be required. This should be verified by legal counsel of the applicant and
submitted for review to the planning department.
18. Condition of Approval #8: Sewage Disposal - Plans must meet NHDES and local requirements.
Applicant shall demonstrate that all permits have been obtained. Copies of these permits should be
presented to the planning department to be placed in the project file.
19. Condition of Approval #12: A note shall be added to the plan and a condition of approval shall be
that "no certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the building inspector until he has certified, with as-build drawings for the infrastructure improvements and foundation certification for units, that the premises have been built in accordance with the approved plan." Currently the phrase "for the unit that the Certificate of Occupancy is being applied for"
is in note #5 - this phrase must be removed and note edited, reviewed by Town staff and recorded as a corrected subdivision plan at the registry of deeds.
Page 5 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
20. Condition of Approval #17: Street names require approval by the Board of Selectmen.
Documentation of this approval should be presented to the planning department to be placed in the project file.
21. Condition of Approval # 23: "The removal of the bridge over the Dames Brook with a restoration to
natural condition shall be a condition of approval" This restoration does not appear to be complete.
22. Due to the nature of residents' complaints and following the site visit on October 22, 2007, the
Board of Selectmen have required that the developer provide the Town with funding to hire a third party consultant to review the completed portions of the site and compare the actual constructed elements of the subdivision with the approved set of plans for the subdivision to ensure that the subdivision was constructed correctly and in accordance with the approved set of plans. An escrow account shall be established by the developer in the amount of $15,500.00 for the express purpose of determining if the constructed portions of the subdivision have been constructed according to the approved set of plans.
Joan Funk arrived at 7:48 pm and Marty Gilman left.
Charlie King noted that some of these items are procedural and minor and opened the floor to the developer, Packy Campbell. Mr. Campbell explained that his attorney Jim Shannon and the original engineer Don Rhodes of Norway Plains are present tonight to assist him with this compliance hearing. Mr. Campbell noted that they would like to address each compliance issue one by one in the order they were presented and continued to do so.
1. In regards to the first and second issues Mr. Campbell agreed that the utility pole and street light need to be installed and noted that a few others need to be installed per the plans. Mr. Rhodes stated that the streetlight on the corner of Elm Street has been installed and believes this was an oversight. Dan replied that the lights were installed on Sky View Drive and Whippoorwill Ridge Road. Mr. Campbell added that they installed extra street lights but is willing to provide as-built plans with the current pole sites and/or call PSNH back in and have them install more poles.
Charlie asked the planning board if they were concerned with the positioning of the poles and lights and they were in agreement that they were fine where they were except for the light missing at the end of Sky View Drive. It was noted that the streetlight would be installed and the as-built plans for all other present poles and lights would be provided to the planning department.
2. In regards to compliance issue #3 Mr. Campbell explained that he has been working on the graded play are and has found four points, have cut down some trees and filled in the back of the area. Mr. Campbell also stated that he knows there is a pile of riprap to be removed and that all the excess equipment has been removed. Mr. Campbell stated that he has made a sincere effort in the last eight weeks to address this issue. Charlie asked if he plans to construct the "play area" as laid out in the approved plans and Mr. Campbell replied yes.
3. In regards to compliance issue #4, Attorney Jim Shannon stated that once the six (6) remaining lots are constructed then they plan to complete the sidewalks and curbing. Mr. Campbell added that the only place on
Page 6 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
the approved plans that calls for curbing is on the bridge, with 25 feet being required on one side and 40 feet on the other.
4. In regards to compliance issue #5, Mr. Rhodes explained that this was something that changed during construction to accommodate drainage. Charlie informed the Board and the public that Dick Colby (engineer for the Town during construction) was present to answer such questions. Mr. Colby confirmed that the basin was moved to catch water that was ponding in the driveway and to stop water from entering the garage, noting they felt this was the best solution at the time. Mr. Campbell stated that he will reflect the changes in the as-builts.
5. In regards to compliance issue #6, Mr. Campbell stated that this street sign was installed "again" this week and questioned as to what point he will not be responsible to replace stolen signs.
6. In regards to compliance issue #7 and #8, Mr. Shannon agreed that these items need to be completed. Mr. Campbell added that he believes these items were actually completed and that Dan should have a letter confirming the work. Dan replied that the statement was not correct, nor was the work completed and Mr. Campbell responded that he would make sure it was done and also acknowledged that two pipes need to be rip rapped, though three have been completed.
7. In regards to compliance issue #9, Charlie commented that this is not a minor item. Mr. Colby stated that original construction was completed by Pike Industries and overseen by himself and when they left the site it was built per the approved set of plans. Mr. Rhodes commented that the retaining walls are on individual lots and not in the common area. Mr. Shannon added that Dan had requested a safety report form an engineer on the walls but due to the time of year, the board would have to wait for spring to obtain such a report.
Charlie stated that the size and height of the large wall is a concern to him, noting that anything over 4 feet should have required a permit. Charlie also noted that he would like it double-checked as to if the wall is on an individual lot or in the common area. Mr. Shannon stated that they are willing to let an engineer make recommendations as to how to address the planning board's concerns.
Mr. Campbell stated that a letter by Don Rhodes stated that the retaining wall does not effect the drainage, he complied with the town request to install safety fences and that the code enforcement officer came out and signed off on the wall. Mr. Campbell stated that he could certainly ask the professional engineer who oversaught the construction to put his stamp on the as-built plans but he also does not believe this is a planning board issue but a code/town issue.
Jim stated that he is would first like to know if the large retaining wall is on an individual lot or the common area and then would like to see that an engineer has approved it for safety and erosion concerns. The entire planning board was in agreement with this statement and would like an engineer's stamp of approval.
8. In regards to compliance issue #10, Mr. Colby explained that the project was constructed in two phases, so he recommended the drainage calculations and plans be changed and due to the reconfigurations of the drainage for phasing he felt these two catch basins were no longer necessary. Mr. Campbell added that this appears to not be in the town files, though there are transmittals in the file that shows he requested an amendment and that he received approval. Mr. Campbell added that LC Engineering assisted with the approval for the Tow and feels proper channels were followed.
Page 7 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
Charlie asked Mr. Colby to confirm that he was in agreement the two catch basins could be removed and that doing so would have no effect on the drainage. Mr. Colby replied yes. Jim H. stated that he believes this is one of the areas that the town has been receiving so many complaints about where "sheeting" occurs. Charlie added that the problem is the linear distance to the next basin is double what is installed at a similar slope in other parts of the development. David commented that he visited the site over the weekend and the water was "pouring" down the road at this area. Mr. Rhodes suggested he review the discharge and make recommendations accordingly. All planning board members agreed it needs to be looked at and addressed. Charlie added that it appears the grade of the lots are all
allowing for run-off into the road and that maybe the original drainage calculations were not sensitive to this. Mr. Campbell responded that some of the drainage has been altered since construction by landscaping of homeowners. Mr. Campbell stated that the original calculations need to be compared to what is current and then discuss different options thereafter though he feels it was not done improperly and was approved by the outside engineer chosen by the town. Charlie commented that the engineering and calculatiions may have been based on elevations that were not constructed.
9. In regards to compliance issue #11 and #12, Mr. Campbell stated he has added it to the as-built plans.
10. In regards to compliance issue #13, Mr. Campbell stated that this would not be complete until the development is completed.
11. In regards to compliance issue #14, Mr. Campbell informed the Board that they signs were installed today. Charlie commented that he takes issue with the quality of the curb because it was suppose to be a 3" and the granite is not installed per the print and does not meet the requirements. Mr. Rhodes stated that this would be an item for him to take a look at in the spring and if corrections need to be made they will be done then.
12. In regards to compliance issue #15, Dan replied that none of the plans that were presented tonight have an engineer stamp on them and due to the amount of changes he is going to request the applicant come back to the planning board for approval, and that they will not be signed off by town staff. Mr. Campbell commented that he believes there is some confusion as to the definition of an "as-built" plan and that he believes the plans can be reviewed by engineers or the planning board at a workshop and not a noticed hearing. Charlie replied that the plans can be reviewed at a continuation of this discussion and not a noticed hearing; Mr. Campbell was okay with this.
13. In regards to compliance issue #16, Dan commented that the integrity of Whippoorwill Ridge Road is a concern because of the amount of time since it has been installed without a topcoat. Mr. Colby stated that all compaction test, etc and documentation have been provided to the town, though the base course pavement has a life expectancy of 2 years in which it will then begin to wear away.
14. In regards to compliance issue #17, Mr. Shannon commented that the common area still belongs to RSA because development is not complete.
15. In regards to compliance issue #18, Mr. Shannon stated that a NHDES permit copy was provided to the planning department last week though Dale Sprague had this permit earlier.
Page 8 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
16. In regards to compliance issue #19, Dan commented that the wording was changed without planning board approval. Mr. Shannon replied that this was done in beginning to address the issue that one certificate of occupancy could not be given without completion of the entire project and that was not logical. Mr. Bates agreed with Mr. Shannon stating that it was not logical and that the planning board should accept it. The planning board agreed it is all set and should be stricken from the list of compliance issues.
17. In regards to compliance issue #20, Dan stated that the Selectmen approved Sky View Drive but there is no documentation that Whippoorwill Ridge Road was ever approved. Mr. Campbell replied that he believes this name was added during the E-911 transformation in town. Dan informed the Board that the street name is listed on E-911. The planning board agreed that this was not an issue.
18. In regards to compliance issue #21, Charlie commented that he agrees with Dan that some additional work needs to be completed for the restoration to be complete. Mr. Shannon commented that he is in agreement that this item is not complete but noted that the Dames Brook restoration is complete, just the surrounding area needs to be cleaned up. Everyone was in agreement that the bridge restoration was complete and that the surrounding areas are all that is left to be restored.
Jim Horgan motioned to continue the meeting until 10 pm., 2nd Don MacVane. Motion carried with all in favor.
19. In regards to compliance issue #22, Mr. Shannon feels this is unnecessary because they have provided documentation needed and previously paid for a third party engineer. Charlie and Don both stated that the planning board cannot revoke a Selectmen requirement. Mr. Shannon asked for the planning board to forward a letter to the Selectmen recommending them to revoke the bond requirement. Charlie replied that he is not ready to go there yet because a timeline for compliance and the development of the remaining undeveloped six lots with the drainage and elevations needs to be addressed.
Mr. Shannon stated that the previous lots did not have to provide elevations, grading and drainage plans prior to development but they will offer those. Charlie questioned if they are proposing to provide a front swale to the remaining six lots and the two lots that are missing it. Mr. Rhodes replied that the plans depict that. It was discussed that the elevations for the lots needs to be 2 feet below the roadway and will require a swale. Dan added that the plans presented tonight for the remaining lots should be provided to the planning board as an amendment. Mr. Rhodes replied that he doesn't feel the plans are amendment because the original plans were not this detailed and they are providing them as a courtesy. Charlie responded that he is not really stuck on the fact if it is an "amended" plan or
not but wants to make sure the remaining lots are constructed correctly.
Jim questioned the catch basing that is out of the ground because of erosion and commented that he believes it seems they were not installed correctly to catch the water. Dan stated that signs of water running across the common area between houses and then washing past the basin instead of through it are present. Mr. Shannon replied that the area has been vegetated and that they would like to relook at in the spring to ensure it is working properly.
Page 9 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
20. It was noted that some additional items for review are the grading of the lower lots 1-6, the common area and its catch basin needs to be addressed for drainage problems and lot 46/47 does not appear to be draining appropriately because water is draining down the driveway of lot 47. It was questioned if there is suppose to be a catch basin in lot 47, Mr. Rhodes stated he would look into it.
21. Mr. Campbell commented that he is not being issued building permits for the remaining lots and he has an issue with that. He stated that he cannot come forward with amendments because there are no drainage plans to amend and that he feels the board needs to release those building permits in light of the documentation provided tonight. Charlie replied that this has been a long road for compliance and he would not be in agreement to issue building permits until a timeline of compliance can be agreed upon. Mr. Shannon stated that there are plans for the six lots that can be reviewed and then issued permits for.
At 9:50, Jim Horgan motioned to continue the meeting until 10:30pm, 2nd Don MacVane. Motion carried with all in favor.
Chairman Charlie King opened the hearing to the public for comment.
22. Rob Seaward, of lot 31, is concerned most with the drainage in his front yard because it ponds and then causes his basement to flood. He is also concerned that he has been paying for the common area that has not even been turned over to the association.
23. Brett Conyer, of 72 Elm Street, stated that the road is higher than his basement so the water flows into his driveway, then garage and eventually his basement. He stated that the catch basin fill with water and then ponds in his driveway, etc. Mr. Shannon responded that the catch basin should be draining across the street and should not be filling up and he believes it may be clogged based on Mr. Seaward description. Mr. Campbell added that the flooding has into Mr. Seaward's basement has only occurred twice in the past two years (as Mr. Seaward stated) and in those two years the Town has experienced two significant 100 year storms in which Rte. 75 was completely washed out, though Sky View Drive remained open. Mr. Rhodes commented that he will check to see if the exit of the basin is clogged and that this
is probably a maintenance issue because the basin was not designed to fill up.
24. James Spaulding commented that by removing the Dick Dame Bridge the riverbed was raised creating a flood zone. He also added that there was suppose to be a wooded buffer zone, but it seems to be disappearing and his property is being encroached upon.
25. Eric Martin, of lot 51, stated that when he purchased his property he was told the retaining wall was part of the common land and he would like to know where the wall is legally and have the wall certified to be sure it is safe and secure. Mr. Martin noted that he has seen rocks come loose in the smaller retaining walls. Charlie replied that the plans depict the wall is on his property but that town staff will review for authenticity and the developer agreed to look at the stability of the wall.
26. Alicia Stickley, resident of Campbell Commons, noted that she lives directly across the street from the emergency access and is concerned that it is being used as a public road and not an emergency access. Charlie replied that it is clearly stated in the approval that this road is for emergency purposes only and that the homeowner's association can come to the town to recommend additional items they could do to address the usage issue. Charlie added that originally the applicant did not want to build the emergency access but the
Page 10 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
planning board required him to for emergency purposes. Ms. Stickley added that due to the lateness of the hour she would like to recommend that the Board allow public comment on this hearing at the continued meeting because many of her neighbors had to leave to get home to their children.
27. Randy ?, of 75 Sky View Drive, stated that when he bought his home he owned 1/60 of the common land, then he lost it when changed from condos and now finds out he will re-own the 1/60 again when the development is complete. Mr. Campbell offered an in-depth explanation as to what occurred. Charlie added that the association will maintain and own the common land upon completion, as it is a requirement of approval.
Randy further asked how additional homes will affect the already failing sewage system. Charlie responded that town staff, the developer and NHDES all approved the system but it is his opinion that it is the responsibility of the developer to have a fully functioning system.
28. Mrs. Sullivan, 53 Sky View Drive, stated that she has had drainage issues since 2004 and that Mr. Campbell addressed them by adding loam and a "speed bump" to her driveway. She also explained that she was told by the code enforcement officer that a certificate of occupancy is issued if the inside of a house is complete and that they do not look at landscaping so the retaining wall was probably not looked at. Mrs. Sullivan questioned why the bond was reduced to $22,000 when that amount will not be sufficient to fund the topcoat that needs to be done. Charlie replied that this has been a learning process and the bonding was agreed to in phases but the board is trying to address it correctly now.
Don asked if the berm on her driveway helped and Mrs. Sullivan replied kind of, noting it alleviated some water but her sump pump runs continuously.
Mrs. Sullivan also inquired about a letter referencing the sewer pump being accepted by the Town with conditions and Charlie replied that the planning board is not privy to Selectmen decisions.
At 10:25, Hiram Watson motioned to extend the meeting to 11pm, 2nd Jim Horgan. Motion carried with all in favor.
29. Ken Watson, 54 Sky View Drive, stated that his property washed out and Mr. Campbell brought in 30 loads of loam to repair it not permanently fix it. He said the drainage has not been corrected and urged the board to hire an independent engineer to review all the drainage for the development.
30. Bill Snowdon, 46 Whippoorwill Ridge Road, stated that the cut in the curbing shown in one of the pictures was put there to address drainage but it did not work and still needs to be further addressed.
31. Ryan Jackson, 27 Whippoorwill Ridge Road, stated that he was home when the large retaining wall was built and saw no compactor there. He added that he has replaced his lawn for times for $4,800 and that the vegetation they installed in the common area is no way going to help the drainage issues in his opinion.
Page 11 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
32. Eric Martin, of lot #51, stated that it is becoming more evident as the night proceeds that the retaining wall was not done with quality construction and would definitely like to see third party review be demanded before something terrible happens as a result of the mounting snow. Charlie responded that the retaining wall is one of this board's highest priorities.
33. Charlie commented that there are numerous drainage issues on the site and that Mr. Campbell needs to convince the planning board that the original plan is working and/or make recommendations to make corrections.
34. Jim stated that he would like to establish a date for compliance. Charlie added that it is his opinion that a sound, reasonable plan/timeline needs to be put in place and that he believes town staff with the applicant should come up with such a timeline and recommend it to the planning board for approval.
Dan responded that the plans presented tonight are not acceptable because they are not stamped and the approval is in limbo because of non-compliance and therefore building permits for the remaining six lots will not be issued.
At 11:05, Hiram Watson motioned to extend the meeting until 11:15 pm, 2nd Jim Horgan. Motion carried with all in favor.
35. Mr. Rhodes commented that he can look into the drainage calculations now but also needs to look on site to compare to assumptions made but will need to wait until the ground is bare to do so.
Jim Horgan motioned to continue the compliance hearing for RSA Development, LLC (Tax Map U-9, Lots 18 & 19 and Tax Map R34, Lots 1-8) until March 18, 2008 and to hold this hearing at the old town hall, 2nd Don MacVane.
Discussion followed in which Charlie stated the abutters will not be re-noticed, but the meeting will be noticed.
Motion carried with all in favor.
Mr. Shannon inquired about the remaining lots and their building permits. Mr. Bates replied that the planning board has embarked on a compliance hearing that has gone very well thus far but that the board has no guarantee the development will come into compliance so his advice to the town is to not issue any new building permits until the possibility of those lots being revoked is removed.
Page 12 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008 Page 13 of 13 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 01-15-2008
Jim Horgan motioned to adjourn, 2nd Joan Funk. Motion passed with all in favor.
Chairman King adjourned the meeting at 11:13 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brandy Sanger
Recording Secretary
______________________________ ______________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
