PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2003
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Jim Horgan, Hiram Watson, Charlie King, Troy Robidas, Marty Chagnon Brad Anderson,
(Gerald White called in absent - in Ct. for work)
Selectmen's Rep: John Fitch called in absent
Staff Present: Nick Manzaro (SRPC), Packy Campbell (RSA Development), John & Jane Wingate, Ben
Locke, Craig Lancey, Lorraine & George Meyer, Joan Doke, Laurie Riley & David Riley,
Barry Elliott
· Chairman Horgan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p. m. New alternate board member Ann Alexander was present and introduced to the board. Mike Garrepy, Rocking Planning Commission consultant planner was introduced to board members and Chairman Horgan stated he will take about what he will do for us. He also has input on the Zoning Ordinance amendments for tonight. Charlie King is seated for John Fitch. New member Ann Alexander is seated for Norm Russell but asked to be excused from the RSA Development public hearing.
· The minutes of January 7, 2003 were reviewed. Due to the fact Fran didn't have time to proof read the minutes because of time constraints, administrative editorial corrections to these minutes are attached to the corrected copy and presented for approval, the content is not changed. Hiram made a motion to approve the minutes as amended and corrected (with red mark revisions as backup), Troy 2nd, Ann Alexander and Brad Anderson abstained, motion carried. Packets of information for tonight's meeting from Mike Garrepy and town counsel were given to board members for review. Jim noted to board members 2 legal copies
are not for public discussion. Chairman Horgan said corrected copies of amendments were given out and shared.
· Chairman Horgan turned the meeting over to Mike Garrepy - Mike gave board members some background of his experience. He works for Rockingham Planning Commission in Exeter. His focus is land use planning (27 towns in Rockingham County). He works with plan reviews, PB's, building inspectors, development, subdivisions, Zoning Ordinances amendments, subdivision regs, Site Reviews, Master Plans, CIP, Impact Fee Ordinances etc. He also does day-to-day land use planning including transportation planning (Rte.11 corridor study, etc.), long and short term. He is not here representing Rockingham County Planning and is here on his own tonight as a
private consultant. He was brought up in N. H., went to UNH and is working on a masters program in Environmental Resource Management.
· Marty Chagnon - received a phone call asking a question on filling in wetlands. Jim Horgan referred him to CEO Paul Charron.
· Review of proposed "Cluster Development Regulations" - Chairman Horgan asked for comments. Jim said we are working on the 3-page document I last presented. Jim said we will continue this to another meeting. Brad suggested having Mike Garrepy review these regulations and revise. He said he hasn't looked at this document yet. Mike said in dealing with this, the appropriate place for this type of regulation is in the Zoning Ordinance, maybe work on this as part of the Zoning Ordinance for 2004. this is in the Zoning Ordinance. Under state statutes, the state has authorized the PB to do this as part of the Zoning
Ordinance amendments which would come before Town Meeting for approval.
Brad - the current Cluster Development Regulations were rescinded. There is currently nothing on the books to allow for Cluster Development.
Charlie - don't we have an application pending on the books. Brad - yes RSA is here under the old cluster regulations.
Mike Garrepy - I will talk to Sharon Somers & Paul Charron about this situation.
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 2
Brad - I motion to table the discussion of the "Cluster Development Regulations/Ordinance" until Mike Garrepy and Sharon Somers review, Marty Chagnon 2nd, all in agreement, motion carried.
Mike Garrepy - the appropriate place for cluster development is to start in the Zoning Ordinance in the framework. You can have regulations that work in tandem with that ordinance. This may be a work in the progress to work on developing for 2004, if a year is O. K. .
Charlie King - In the short term, what do you suggest?
Mike Garrepy - I will speak with Sharon Somers to get a working document, hopefully for 1/28/03.
Brad - if we adopt this as an ordinance, can we accept applications?
Mike Garrepy - yes. No further discussion. No other issues until 7:30 p. m.
At 7:20 p. m. Marty Chagnon made motion for recess, Hiram 2nd, motion carried. Meeting
reconvened at 7:30 p. m.
· Christina Purdum (Alternate Board Member) resignation. Chairman Horgan informed the board a reply has been received from letter sent to Christina & she has responded via E-mail (not signed), that she is unable to continue as a board member because of schooling commitment. No objections from board it was received as an E-mail and resignation was accepted as presented. Chairman Horgan informed those present that there is a vacant alternate seat available.
7:30 p. m. Public Hearing
· Cluster Development Review Application continuation by RSA Development, LLC, for Elm St./Dick Dame Lane (Tax Map R34, Lot 1-8 and U9, Lots 18 and 19). Marty Chagnon and Ann Alexander have been excused off the board for this public hearing. Attorney Malcolm McNeill is present to represent RSA Development. He presented a revised plan to show the condo project with the limited common area around building sites, the general common area consistent with the regulations we are relying upon & that I would prepare condo documents ("Declaration of Campbell Condominium" and "Bylaws of Campbell Condominium, A Condominium Unit
Owners' Association") - see attached documents. Mr. McNeill explained he has utilized the ordinance to comply with open space, to make sure it is 8 units or more, this is a 60 unit proposed condominium, we're relying on your Special Use Permit that you previously granted in terms of access to the site in terms of the road's location, basic design is that the unit owner will own the unit - the building located on the footprint shown on the plan, adequate setbacks consistent with your regs. from adjoining structures, limited common area will be subject to separate controlled maintenance by the unit owner but the general common area will be held in common by the condominium. Mr. Campbell is using his own name for the condominium. Documents are very standard types of condo documents. Unit is described on page 2. The common area is described on page 3, the entire property except for the unit in the building (see attached documents for complete explanation).
Page 4 of the Declaration of Campbell Condominium references the limited common area - the small area around each unit (see attached). Mr. McNeill - bylaws provision that the party in possession of that limited space be responsible for it, maintenance and costs related to maintenance. Landscaping is done by the condo association for uniformity as to maintenance being done. We are proposing that this limited common area be permissible as it recognizes the more rural nature of the community. The remainder of the declaration itself describes right and by-laws of those in the condominium. Mr. McNeill asked to have legal counsel Sharon Somers review these documents. The unit holders association is the by-laws how officers are elected, fees are assessed, how management is conducted and make sure legal counsel is comfortable with these documents. Page 18 - refers to the limited common area which is unique to this condominium development. There will be a minimum unit size of 900
s. f., provide for various covenants, no outside advertising, page 16 deals with restrictions. Engineer Don Rhodes of Norway Plains addressed the board with changes to the plans (footprints and individual limited common areas.) The limited common areas, another with building envelopes set inside based on 15' side and rear, 25' front yard setback to be in agreement with zoning setbacks in this area. The envelope areas are generally 2500 to 3000 s. f. The building would be about 1/3 of that area. The road configuration, drainage, number of units remains the same in previously submitted
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 3
plans. The sheets I brought tonight just reflect the changes for the condominium. Jim asked for board comments.
Charlie King - no questions. Troy Robidas - no questions.
Hiram - asked about lines on page 2 of plans. There will be no fencing or stone walls. Attorney McNeill said corners of lots can be marked for unit holders to know their area.
Brad - regarding the limited condo area - do they constitute lots?
Attorney McNeill - the unit holder has a right to enhanced areas in a condo cluster development.
Brad - individual lots are subject to lot size.
Packy Campbell - Mr. Anderson wasn't here when we advised that Mr. McNeill was retained. We are proposing (Sharon Somers & Attorney McNeill) what a condo is with limited common area - limited ownership. This does intend to create a limited common area for a sense of ownership. Legally these would not be considered lots.
Brad - was our attorney at that meeting?
Attorney McNeill - your attorney was not at that meeting. These are limited common areas, not lots. We want your lawyer to be comfortable with it.
Troy - can fencing be put up?
Attorney McNeill - with discretion by vote of the association.
Brad - is there a reason clothes lines can't be used? Attorney McNeill said we can take out clothes lines reference.
Charlie King - regarding sidewalk - the 1st driveway on Lone Star continuing into the development at unit 23. Does that fall within regulations as discussed?
Jim Horgan - there is no requirement for it to go to the end. It was to go up Elm St. to Lone Star - 1st driveway. Engineer Don Rhodes explained the plan to the board regarding curbing.
Charlie King - is the roadway going to be marked off for sidewalk? Don Rhodes said on the shoulder.
Brad - are we still waiting for the ZBA decision?
Jim Horgan - it is not resolved yet.
CEO Paul Charron - documents to reflect changes to condo, may agree with condo issue of "lots."
Jim Horgan - questioned utilities, driveway location, permits?
Packy Campbell - utilities are laid out by PSNH We propose a mix of overhead and underground electric services. One pole services 6 lots and we will end up with 18 poles in the development. Units themselves will be underground. Poles will be on one side of the road. All primary service will be overhead. Secondary service will be underground.
Brad - questioned the deceleration lane. Engineer Don Rhodes said we have met with State of NH DOT and know what we need to give them. There is no deceleration lane as it was decided by DOT to not be needed.
Brad - what about bonding?
Packy - that has not been resolved. Needs to be worked on legally. The town needs to come up with a bonding policy. Legal counsel - fine tune answer from town counsel Sharon Somers. We will submit our proposal to her. Is bonding actually a requirement in Farmington? This road will always be a private road not to be accepted by the town.
Charlie King - what did we ask for bonding?
Jim Horgan - bonding was for the entire subdivision.
Packy - we cannot do a bond without a signed mylar plan.
Attorney McNeill - we can work on this, The selectmen or highway supt. can possibly also work on this. We know we have to be appropriately bonded within a certain amount of time.
CEO Paul Charron - the selectmen have been approached regarding the bonding. Paul will discuss this with them further.
Packy - explained the Rochester bonding process. Conditional approval with a mylar is given. The amount we bond is what is left to be done (loam, trees, seeding, etc.). A bond is posted for a contingency amount which is put in a bank passbook and taken out as needed to complete work.
Jim Horgan - get with the CEO Paul Charron for the process.
Planning Board Meeting January 24, 2003 (continued) Page 4
Brad - has any gravel operation been active?
Packy - there is an active pit. I believe the CEO is aware of mining it. The topo has not changed significantly. A French drain is in the plan. There is a permitted gravel operation here.
Brad - have contours changed? Packy - no.
Brad - there is an area we are interested in. Packy explained Brad missed the site walk. Brad said he was very familiar with the area. Packy said the area looks like a "moon walk." The other side of Kicking Horse Brook shows thick vegetation. Discussion on homes being seen. What about increased noise level?
Packy - said the 800 - 900 feet of distance to the nearest house is an excessive buffer. It is my position the that way it is proposed be acceptable to this board.
Troy - do you have a reciprocal agreement with the Mobile Home Park owner?
Packy - not yet, we will bring it in before the mylar is signed.
CEO - there is no legend, no details on the plan. Only Page 4 - 8 are changed on 16 page plans originally submitted in total. The balance remains the same. This is a proposed Condominium Cluster Development with limited open space. Discussion between CEO and Engineer Don Rhodes. These new plans show layout on plan.
Attorney McNeill - we have to resolve the bonding, CEO issues, suggest conditional approval for the next meeting. Lawyer can review what has been presented and bring back a list for approval.
Jim Horgan - go through CEO Paul Charron.
Attorney McNeill - would you like to know where litigation is? We cannot proceed without the approval of the plan. The status of cases is to dismiss the case - we have filed an Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Legal Standing. We will address the issues. We can ask you to approve the plan. There are cases where you may need a variance but you can still go to the PB. If the ZBA denies us we don't go forward, but if the result is favorable, then we proceed. Issues of bonding, legal definition of "limited common areas", and agreement with mobile home park owner for egress and pedestrian walkway were mentioned. Attorney McNeill said we would expect your approval conditional on state permits.
Packy - they weren't part of the discussion.
Brad - limit plan conditional on certain things. Do we have a feeling on that? Some people are nervous about that.
Jim Horgan - things we have control over are to be done within a reasonable amount of time. We're not at that point yet.
CEO Paul Charron - get with Clark, Dale and Selectmen, etc.
Chairman Horgan - asked for questions from the public.
Jane Wingate - questioned the ZBA vs. PB case.
Attorney McNeill - explained to Ms. Wingate the legality. This is a 1st in his 30-year career. There's very little case law. I will see that a copy is available to Ms. Wingate.
Ben Locke abutter at 47 Elm St. - moved into the Place's home in October and wasn't aware at the time of this development and not informed by the Places or the realtor of it. He's a 1st time home buyer who didn't know about the process. What about investigating effect of traffic? Accidents happen on this road. I can't believe nothing is being done about traffic & pollution resulting from every car going by in front of our house. This house will be severely impacted. He questioned why he wasn't contacted. People who own land have rights, neighbors should be respected. I hope the PB will take this into account. He also questioned the valuation of his home with this development going in.
Chairman Horgan - how did you hear about the meeting?
Ben Locke - he attended the last meeting and actually heard about the development from a neighbor.
Packy Campbell - apologized Mr. Locke wasn't notified. The meetings were posted. As a licensed realtor you may have a lawsuit against the Place's or the realtor. Throughout this process it has been posted. Discussion. Packy would like to talk with Mr. Locke and work out perceived problems.
Brad - can you work to preserve his property?
Packy Campbell - he bought this property at a discount because of this project. He bought it as an existing home.
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 5
Ben Locke - questioned treatment of the street - it is an unsafe street to walk or drive on.
Charlie King - why is there a single main entrance and exit? Why not 2 entrances and exits?
CEO Paul Charron - because of crossings involving wetlands. Discussion on this.
Charlie King - is this an exception?
Jim Horgan - this was part of the previous discussion.
CEO Paul Charron - this will be part of new private road standards.
Packy Campbell - the proposed standards for private roads wouldn't apply.
Discussion on January 28, 2003 continuation.
Attorney McNeill - Ms. Somers has seen these standards many times.
Troy - motioned to bump this to February 11, 2003, Brad 2nd, discussion, all in favor, motion carried.
Brad made a motion to recess at 8:30 p. m. for 5 minutes, Troy 2nd, motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 8:40 p. m.
· Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Brad briefed those present how the subcommittee for these changes came up with the list they have. A concern was the increase in density in the UR and SR zones. We have modified the residential density that require the applicant to meet certain conditions. This document reflects changes the PB requested to be changed.
Mike Garrepy - there were 7 things to not consider putting to the public. Put into one motion (7 to not include by number, public comment to not include as posted).
Brad - will item I remain I? Motion would be to not recommend items numbered 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13.
Mr. Meyer - you said it is consistent with the Master Plan. Do you plan on listing this for the town meeting?
Jim Horgan - last meeting 1/7/03 we eliminated 7 items. Tonight we decide on the process. How long ago did you start drafting this? There are no copies for people to vote knowledgeably on them.
Brad - we have to vote on them by certain dates for town meeting.
Mr. Meyer - these amendments are not clear.
Brad - suggestions.
Ann Alexander - said she was a member of the public at these subcommittee meetings.
Discussion on availability of these amendments to the public.
Barry Elliott - make it available to the public ahead of time to know what they are voting on. We (the public) need input.
Jane Wingate - how are they going to be any more educated?
Brad - this has to go on the ballot. Post on the internet web site. Discussion on this and how to make it happen.
Charlie King - can we propose a procedural change?
Jim Horgan - we are committed.
Brad - we might ask the selectmen to post this on the web site.
Brad - motion to ask the selectmen to put the Zoning Ordinance amendments on the web site and include in the Town Annual Report, Charlie 2nd, motion carried.
Brad - Mike Garrepy has a lot of recommended changes.
Dave Cassanda - is this the list in Fosters? Jim Horgan answered - yes.
Brad - intent of items in I, Section 3.14. These have been the same since at least 1990. We are trying to be consistent with the State Building Code. Include all those and Housing Maintenance & Occupancy Codes so people know what to do for a building permit. Mike Garrepy has suggestions on re-writing this section. This is recommended to be part of Section 1.07. His change came in this afternoon so we haven't had time to absorb it.
Mike Garrepy - Construction Codes, Section 1.07 (attached), changes how towns can adopt building codes by legislature. International Codes are referenced. The change was a bit short sighted. He looked at amendments I and 18. He referenced Building Codes RSA 155A - statute authorizing state building codes. Mike added under I. Building Code. d. dealing with Farmington Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code (above and beyond state code). Added II. Definitions, III Fencing, IV Building Permit Required, V
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 6
No Building Permit Required, VI Interpretation, Administration & Enforcement (enforcement of code). It is important to keep this. Section VII. Appeal of Decisions (as is), VIII Fines and Penalties (as is).
CEO Paul Charron - Items I and 2. are combined into Section 1.07.
Mike Garrepy - Section 3.14 is just Housing Standards and I would suggest leaving that as is.
Lorraine Meyer - this is all very confusing. Is what you are now proposing going to be available to the public?
Mr. Cassanda - questioned the numbers and order. We should be reviewing the "body" not numbering, the body is what is important.
Mr. Meyer - this is not worth the time. I submit these are not going to be ready for public input.
Mrs. Doke - this isn't going to be ready anywhere until the 28th!
Brad - the state mandates this schedule. We ran out of time completing these changes. We are all volunteers. I will try and get this on the internet as soon as possible. We're doing the best we can.
Craig Lancey - what's the justification for the urgency? Why are you so pressed? Why not make sure you go over it thoroughly?
Brad - I stay up all the time doing this. We pledged to do our best. These were changes at the top of the list of 98 items.
Jim Horgan - pressure from time tables is an issue we have to comply with. The enforcement of the CEO is an urgent item as well as #18 - Sexual Oriented Business Ordinance. The remainder we could waddle through.
Brad - maybe we could make a suggestion.
Mr. Cassanda - pools - why is it necessary to fence around pools? The height of fencing is wrong.
CEO Paul Charron - fencing was adopted in 1985. They adopted a 4' barrier with gates to prevent small children from getting in. We have tried to rectify mistakes.
Mr. Cassanda - if its an inground pool they would be in violation if a fence is not installed. It is dangerous. Discussion.
Barry Elliott - how is enforcement of the code possible?
CEO Paul Charron - use the International Building Code. The state decides that.
Mike Garrepy - the legislature is working on RSA 155A. There will be a housing code enforced by the CEO.
Barry Elliott - will these items all be part of the warrant articles?
Jim Horgan - yes, this is for the town voters.
Mike Garrepy - the state is mandating the towns all follow the same codes.
Craig Lancey - are there separate regulations that refer to changes to existing ordinances?
Brad - the more restrictive shall apply in overlapping issues.
Craig Lancey - will these be significantly altered?
Brad - we didn't mean to do that. In the next year we will do that.
Craig Lancey - isn't a public member going to think it a "moot" issue.
Jim Horgan - the items were identified to try and correct.
Mike Garrepy - Section VII. and VI. e. discussion.
Brad - add definitions - Confluence Line, Commercial. - add to definitions in Section 1.12 with NOTE referencing the other section it appears.
Charlie King - asked Mike Garrepy what he thought of these definitions. Section 1.12.
Mike Garrepy - I do like the "Frontage" definition. Discussion.
Packy Campbell - we're discussing these proposed definitions. I agree with Mike. This is a specific thing that is going to change in Farmington. This could impact lots with limited access, shared driveways, etc. It has implications in many other respects.
Brad - change the word "shall" to may (Section 1.12 Definitions).
Mike Garrepy - discussed access - shared way.
Packy - what about "may provide access" referencing driveways, shared access, private driveways. It has frontage on existing roads but no access from frontage. I recommend not changing that.
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 7
Charlie King - I make a friendly motion to amend frontage definition from "shall" to may, Brad 2nd, Jim, Troy and Marty opposed, Ann abstained. 3 for 3 against 1 abstain.
Ann Alexander - asked about green space and access of same. Does this kind of frontage affect what we are talking about.
Brad explained that "frontage" and "street frontage" definitions are different. Discussion. This was a problem. Post as originally recommended.
Troy - I'm not sure we want to make these definition changes. The word "may" was discussed. When people read this they are going to be confused.
Mike Garrepy - I don't think it’s a losing situation if we clean this up. Is it going to be detrimental? The proposed is an improvement. You are going down the wrong path if you don't do it.
Ann Alexander - look it over before considering this.
Brad - I make the motion we include Section 1.12 as written - motion fails for lack of 2nd.
Brad - Item 4. Section 2.00- at the last meeting January 7, 2003 it was decided to move standards for special exceptions to Section 3.17.
Craig - am I given to understand there were omissions and additions, or is the wording just moved around?
Brad - the original text block - revisions from last time are blue and green this time. We've cleaned it up and defined the codes. There are no changes to the ordinance.
Packy - what you are voting on is to go to the general public for vote. When proposed changes to a Zoning Ordinance are posted, they are in effect, the law of the land.
Mike Garrepy - it is voted on.
Packy - when the PB votes these changes, we are passing the extent of a law and have to follow those rules til the town votes.
Craig - it is my understanding it has to come before the legislative body. The more restrictive applies based on the law. Discussion on this understanding.
CEO Paul Charron - discussed amendments and Craig is asking for interpretation. A building permit being issued after vote posting and two month lag was discussed.
Mike Garrepy - you can apply what is more restrictive. Right now you have an interim ordinance for "Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance."
Craig - right now you have an ordinance on the books on this, referencing RSA 672 and 674 or as otherwise provided by law.
Brad - I make a motion to extend the meeting until we complete these recommended changes, Hiram 2nd, Jim and Marty opposed, motion carried.
Brad - I recommend we go through this stuff and move on so the public can vote.
Jim Horgan - I didn't vote on it. Discussion on last changes. Vote on whether all of these go before the town. The better part as indicated by the public input shouldn't be put before the town for vote. There has been no time for this to come before the public or PB for review. I don't recall the committee coming to us for our recommendation/discussion. Everything we've heard is for the most part confusing. We're going to ask people to vote on things that will make more problems for the town, for us and the public.
Brad - make a motion to approve Section 4. as presented tonight.
Craig - discussion on Section 3.17 Special Exceptions.
Packy - tonight we are at a point of public input and it becomes the law of the land until town meeting. Discussion. I'm ill prepared because I didn't get a copy of this.
Jane Wingate - there are 2 developers here with a vested interest. There are people who worked hard on this. These 2 developers are delaying the process.
Charlie King - their opinion is as valued as yours.
Jim Horgan made a motion to recess at 10:05 p. m., Hiram 2nd, motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 10:25 p. m.
Brad made a motion to move in Item 4., "Section 3.17 D. Special Exception, and change notification from 15 days to 10 days, Troy 2nd, motion carried.
Craig - Item 5. Section 1.13 discussion.
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 8
Mike Garrepy - Section 1.13 doesn't need to go before the voters.
Brad made a motion to not include Item 5, Section 1.13 to posting for Town Meeting, Marty 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Brad made a motion to not post Items 6, 7, and 8 for Town Meeting, Ann 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Brad - explained Item 9. Section 2.04 explaining the VC district. It was our top item of importance.
Packy - this is my opportunity to speak - this is a noticed public hearing meeting. I want to be clear we are in the process of reviewing the cluster development regulations. Brad - we have rescinded them until we rewrite them. Packy - why have "cluster development" and "condominium" been struck out and "subdivision" added?
Charlie King - they have their own separate regulation/ordinance.
Packy - under the previous regulations density was based on something. Discussion. Are you writing Cluster Regulations that supercede this Zoning Ordinance?
Brad - we rescinded it until such time as we rewrite them.
Barry Elliott - Item 9. There are some tremendous changes here. Look at the restrictions? You've almost made it impossible to do anything in this zone. I think you need to look at the VC as it relates to the UR zone. This may be appropriate outside this area.
Craig - gave an example of calculations he worked out based on density calculations in this document. He has no clue as to how to approach this concept at all. Discussion on calculation. Numbers were discussed with 1-acre requirement - where did that come from? Packy, Barry and Craig discussed this recommended change. You are going completely the other way.
Craig - I don't understand how you apply "density" here.
Packy - it is important for the PB that it is well known that Brad has a bias on the majority of issues here. I question the legality of these issues. Discussion. You cannot require me to allow public access on my private land. You can walk on my property until I post it. Section B. how does recreation use imply?
Barry Elliott - if you try and push Item 9., you are going to have a "no" vote. Discussion.
Ann Alexander - is this voted as a block or individually? Brad answered in groups.
Brad - Section (3) (a)- (c) this is what has been modified. You can't affect abutters. People are here because they have been here a long time.
Troy - (1) (b) increase 5,000 s. f. to 10,000 s. f.
Packy - this is a reversal direction.
Mike Garrepy - this is confusing to me and I'm having trouble digesting it. Density bonuses should be addressed in the Cluster Regulations.
Craig - discussed zoning and how it affects property values and people who own property - they have their rights. This is the 1st time I've attended as a property rights advocate.
Packy - maybe we should change 1 dwelling per 5,000 s. f. to 1 dwelling per 8,000 s. f.
Brad - our goal was to create some type of working density.
Troy - change it rather than scrap it.
Craig - calculations (taking out setbacks) was discussed at length with Craig giving an example of a calculation.
Troy - change the 1 dwelling per 5,000 s. f. to 10,000 s. f., Brad 2nd, eliminate paragraph 3. In table 2.04 scratch column "B" - cluster development, condominium & subdivision. Motion carried.
Brad - Item 10. Section 2.05 - increase rehab for certain types of buildings in the VC. Continue to revitalize the downtown center.
Craig - concern about multi-units, specifically rehabs. The only thing I address is residential conversion. We need a code for these types of "gut and rebuild interior and wiring buildings." Sometimes the overall structure isn't good. We need a clear comprehension. Do this in a manner that results in high quality. Discussion. The intent of this is to increase density in the applicable zones.
CEO - multi-family comes before the PB anyhow.
Packy Campbell - why not in the VC - add to the table under conditions.
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 9
Craig - questioned incentives to make quality rehabs.
Brad to Craig - I would invite you to draft some standards and define qualities you would like to see for rehab, present to the board and the board will possibly adopt them as Guidelines for High Quality Standards for Rehabilitation attach to Housing, Maintenance & Occupancy Code Regulations Craig - I appreciate that and I could do that. It's not my position to police these buildings We sell what gets approved, no matter what it is. You are going to see a lot of sales.
Brad - I motion we post Item 10, Section 2.05 as it is written, Marty 2nd, Troy, Ann and Jim opposed, motion failed for lack of majority.
Brad - Items 11, 12, and 13 -motion to not post for public hearing at Town meeting, Ann 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Brad - Item 14 - you asked to scrap but I would like to ask Mike about this paragraph compliance with other codes originally in our ordinance, especially RSA 676.14 about whatever the greater restriction or higher standard should be the controlling provision. Our intent at the workshop was to make sure any conflictions within the Zoning Ordinance that the stricter shall apply. Does that need to be in there or is that already a standard understood principle. Mike felt it was not necessary. We can get clarification from Sharon Somers.
Troy - I make a motion to change the word from "other" to "conflicting" and scratch the subparagraph 1.05 and to not post for public hearing, Marty 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Brad - Item 15. Clarifying language for buffers. In Paragraph B the original intent of this section was to include all buffer areas in the wetland Conservation Overlay District as well as the wetlands themselves. Intent is to include buffers. This clarifies in added paragraph (G) (2) Class II buffers. The rest is minor clarification.
Ann - existing wetlands and buildings and tar already there - are they affected if 50' from wetlands buffer? Brad said no.
Brad - there is a list of uses in wetlands overlay district already there. Under (J) there is a Special Use Permit that people can get for other type of construction - roads, streets, etc.
Charlie - wetlands and shore land protection and 50' buffers question. Discussion.
Packy - I've had extensive interaction with these wetlands issues proposed. Previously there was not a 50' buffer setback in Farmington. Discussion.
Brad - not with Special Use Permits.
Packy - a 50' setback is more than this room. This takes away significant property rights. It's extremely restrictive. There are ways to protect our wetlands. This affects so many people and will create unbuildable lots and sprawl. I think you ought to consider 15', 20' or 25'. Brad - the OSP recommends 100' buffers. It's about protecting wetlands. Discussion on wetland areas and Class I, II, and III. Discussion on BMP's. This is excessive. This is to control growth. I think there is a better way to protect our wetlands. This is premature and affects so many households in the VC and UR zones and increases the sprawl problem.
Packy - let's look at the downtown area. What about amending the 50' buffer to 25'.
Brad - the CC has already done this - set the 50' buffer setback around wetlands. It's not to moderate growth, it's to protect wetlands. Discussion on wetlands areas. This isn't a deadly thing that is being portrayed. Packy discussed the buffers & setbacks.
Brad made motion to recess 5 minutes at 11:35 p. m., Troy 2nd, motion carried. Reconvene meeting at 11:40 p. m. Marty asked to be excused because of work next day.
Brad made motion to include Item 15. Section 4.03 to posting for public hearing in the Town Warrant, Hiram 2nd, motion carried. Discussion. Packy concerned about wording change from shall to may. This is a huge change from the intent of this ordinance. The intent of the Special Use Permit is to allow people to cross sensitive wetlands.
Brad - that's not the intent of the Special Use Permit. The intent is to allow them to do certain uses anywhere within the Wetlands Conservation Overlay area including the buffer area. Discussion on wording may and shall. If it said shall - it would demonstrate he has done all those things & the board has
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page10
determined it, then the board has to give him the permit, which we should. If it says may, he could satisfy all those things and the board could determine criteria has been met and still not grant him Special Use Permit on whim they wanted.
Charlie - if he meets the requirements, how can we deny him. Discussion.
Ann made motion to change Item 15, Section 4.03 (J) Special Use Permits - use the word shall - not may, Troy 2nd, motion carried. Discussion on this word "may" coming up in other sections - Packy wants to make sure this doesn't happen. Brad doesn't recall other places they might have done that.
Mike Garrepy - make motion to continue this item to January 28, 2003 for final vote. You are changing full text significantly. Brad - let's not change it, then it's not significant. I don't think it hurts to continue it to the next meeting on January 28th. Discussion. We need the lawyer to look at it.
Brad - it's not significant. Pass as written or don't post it at all.
Brad - withdraw motion 1st motion on shall to may.
Ann Alexander - I'm still stuck on the CC setting setbacks not the PB. Brad - The Zoning Ordinance authorized the CC on its own motion to designate buffers up to 50' on Class II wetlands. This went thru several meetings and discussions. An applicant would come to the PB for things not listed for approval. Brad - the CC can waive/reduce the 50' buffer, I think. The PB in consult with the CC can do this only.
Discussion on (K) Petitions.
Packy - can a trigger be put in where an applicant has to go to the Conservation Commission?
Item 15. Brad - motion to continue this discussion on Item 15, Section 4.03 to January 28, 2003, Troy 2nd, motion carried. Packy questioned "but not limited to," which gives the board unlimited power. Discussion. Brad said this has been discussed and we are not going to discuss it anymore tonight.
Item 16. Section 4.04. Brad provided a Confluence line diagram to clarify this along with definition. Discussion. The confluence is a point, a line that goes across a river and follows the bank of the stream or river it has confluence with. The dotted higher line is the confluence line for stream A, the bottom solid line is the confluence line for stream B. This is where the limited development (controlled) zone is which goes out 100'.
John Wingate - the definition of the confluence line is ambiguous. I would propose that it is the furthest downstream line. He showed the board this on the diagram Brad provided.
Brad - the definition would remain but it is the furthest downstream line.
Packy - the CEO made an interpretation in June 2001. Why would we change that? This diagram is part of the ordinance to clarify interpretation. This makes it more limited than the CEO's interpretation. This is more restrictive and more infringing on property rights.
CEO - It took me 3 - 5 months on paper to do what he's done which is a masterful job on qualifying the confluence line. Brad added the furthest downstream line which is what John Wingate discussed on the confluence line. I would have to change the diagram. John Wingate was thanked.
Discussion on definition in Section 4.04 and maybe adding to Section 1.12 with NOTE referencing Section 4.04 as a formality. Item 16, Section 4.04 Waterfront Protection Overlay District (2) change back to shall (not may).
Packy - Item 16 - (2) (d) (3) - discussed the word "on". Brad - it was our intent to show it as shown. This was to be for clarification only. Brad - it was not the intent of the ordinance. Packy - I will prove this point in court very shortly. Wait and see how the court rules. You do not go to the ZBA for Special Use Permits. Discussion on interpretation. If you meet criteria for Special Use Permits and come in with engineers to support your position, you are complying with what is requested. A Special Use Permit is not something you go to the ZBA with, it goes to Superior Court. I would like the gentleman planner to confirm that. Discussion on distance from water body and affecting water flow & chemical content of a water body.
Mike Garrepy - if not allowed by Special Use Permit, the only appeal is to the Superior Court. There's no variance provision.
Jane Wingate - you should know there's a suit pending. Jim informed Ms. Wingate this is not a discussion for tonight. Brad - it's nonsensical this applies to "on the water." Clearly it's not on the water. Is this better or worse than we had before - my opinion is it's better.
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 11
Mike Garrepy - continue this to next meeting. Have legal counsel Sharon Somers review.
Brad - continue Item 16. to January 28, 2003, Charlie 2nd, vote unanimous, motion carried.
Item 17. Brad - motion to scratch this entirely and address this in regulations, do not post for Town Warrant, Charlie 2nd, motion carried.
Item 18. Sexual Oriented Business Ordinance. Jim turned this over to Mike Garrepy - I took what you had existing and added to it. What is bold and underlined is existing. There are just a couple of changes. I did add to the Section 2 - Purpose to clarify it. On page 3 - i.) added Nudity or a State of Nudity, j.)Semi-Nudity. In l.) defined Sexually Oriented Business), and m.) Specified Sexual Activities).
Item 18, Section 4. - Location Restrictions - I added some restrictions which are bold and underlined. Discussion on setbacks and availability of land for this use after approving setbacks - it may completely eliminate land availability for this use in this zone. Only you as a board can answer whether these restrictions are too restrictive. Right now we have restricted this to the IB zone. Discussion. Jim - there are several residences in that area.
Mike Garrepy - I don't know what is in the IB zone and how big it is. These restrictions may be totally appropriate or they may be way in excess. Discussion of dropping distances to (500'), and (e) 1,500' of property line. Jim - there are snowmobile trails on both sides of the road there.
Ann - what about adding a Special Permit?
Jim - we already require a Special Exception by the Zoning Ordinance.
Brad - discussion on churches, schools, etc. in the area of this type of business. There is a Day Care.
Mike Garrepy - you already require Special Exception by the ZBA. Increase zone it is allowed in or make it a combination of the 2. Rte. 11 is probably where you'd want it. Just tone down to 500' until you can explore it. (Items a.), b.), c.), h.). We sure don't want to see it as a gateway to our town.
Brad - I'm happy leaving a.) and b.) at 1,000'. On c) recreation land - discussion on setback. Leave 1,500 or maybe 1,000. That would pretty much cut out that whole intersection. Jim - I don't know.
CEO Paul Charron - What about making it not less than 500'? Would that allow a certain amount of flexibility? Discussion on allowing the PB to set unreasonable limits if they so chose to.
Brad - I think (f) is the only one that's a problem. This whole area is zoned for residential use and 500' from that runs into the agricultural zone. Jim - so we can just end that after 2nd line used for residential purposes. Mike - f.) stop after purposes and delete the remainder.
Jim - what about these distances on a.) and b.), do you want to leave them at 1,000'? Discussion if this is feasible. Leave a reasonable area for these types of establishments.
Brad - What about these intersections like Rte. 153 intersection with Rte. 11 which are entries to the downtown village center. Jim Horgan - the Commercial Center is where we don't allow them. Jim said that's all supposed to disappear when they modify Rte.11/Meetinghouse Hill Rd. Discussion on IB zone. This isn't the place for this type of business.
Mike Garrepy - add letter m.) a sexually oriented business shall not be allowed within 1,000' of the intersection Rte.11 & 153. Discussion on making this 1,000' because of Day Care and Family Care Center and residential, more discussion on town border.
Section 5 - Signage - Mike added this section in bold and underlined..
Section 7 - Public Nuisance - Mike added this section in bold and underlined..
Section 7 - Separability Mike added this section.
Section 7 - Effective Date - Mike added this section in bold and underlined.
Brad made motion to post Item 18. Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance as amended my Mike Garrepy at this meeting for January 28, 2003 to be put on Town Warrant, Ann 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Mike was thanked for his involvement and assistance. We were directed to post amendments Items 1 and 2 for January 28, 2003 public hearing meeting.
Brad made motion to continue items 1 and 2 of the Zoning Ordinance amendments to the January 28, 2003 public hearing meeting, Charlie 2nd, motion carried.
Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2003 (continued) Page 12
Because of the lateness of the meeting 12:45 p. m., meeting was adjourned with a motion by Hiram and 2nd by Troy, motion carried.
APPROVED
__________________________________________ ________________
Jim Horgan, Acting Chairman Date
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
