PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Jim Horgan, Hiram Watson, Gerald White, Charlie King, Brad Anderson, and Ann
Alexander (Marty Chagnon and Troy Robidas called in absent)
Selectmen's Rep: John Fitch
Staff Present: Paul Charron and Fran Osborne
Public Present: Randy Tetreault, Tom Demers & Bob Talon, David Berry & Craig Lancey, Mr. & Mrs.
Ernest Baud, Barry Elliott, Margaret Russell, Jane & John Wingate, Thomas Roux, Jr.,
Stephanie Nachez, Rita St.Pierre, Jill Tozier and others not signed in
· Chairman Horgan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and seated Charlie King and Ann Alexander for Troy Robidas and Norm Russell. The minutes of February 11, 2003 were reviewed and Fran made a correction she had left out of the minutes. Add after amendments:
Chairman Horgan seated Charlie King and Ann Alexander for Norm Russell and John Fitch.
· Discussion Item - New Business:
(`1) Randy Tetreault, Norway Plains - discuss possible 2-lot subdivision for Natalie Jones, 6 Blaine St. (Tax Map R48, Lot 20-2), and 2-lot subdivision for Jean Pease, Charles St. (Tax Map R48, Lot 20-2). Randy is here to clarify a rule in the subdivision regulations which applies to both these lots. Randy quoted Section 4.22 of the Subdivision Regulations - Frontage: If there are less than 3 lots each of the lots in question must have the required frontage on a Class 6, or better road or a 50 foot right-of-way. (Amended February 2, 1988) and Section 8.2 of the old Land Use Ordinance 1992 - The following frontage is required for newly subdivided lots where there are more than two lots in the subdivision on a Class 5 or better road, highway or
private road built to town standards:
1/2 acre zone 100 ft.
1 acre zone 150 ft.
3 acre zone 250 ft.
On internal roads 175 ft.
These requirements are to apply except where otherwise provided for in the Town Regulations. (Adopted 1987).
Both these lots would be for development of rear or back lots with an existing home on front lot. Randy feels you don't need the required frontage for the back lot. Discussion on the new Zoning Ordinance and if it will be the same. The new one says you can't subdivide on a right-of-way. In the 2002 Zoning Ordinance under Section 3.02 Access of lots to Streets. No building shall be erected on a lot unless the lot has street frontage as defined in Section 1.12. In Section 3.04 Development of Rear Lots. A rear lot is a lot which is located to the rear of another lot or lots with street frontage as defined in Section 1.12. A rear lot existing as of the date of adoption of this section may be developed for residential uses, provided that: (A) There is an
unobstructed access to the rear lot from the street over land that is not needed to meet the minimum requirements of the zone for the front lot. (B) The proposed driveway must be approved by the CEO, the SVM & H, and a representative from the Fire Department. A rear lot existing as of the date of adoption of this section may be developed for non-residential uses, but non-residential developments are subject to site plan review and all other such reviews as may be required. In Section 1.15 - it doesn't specifically say you can have less than required frontage. Randy gave the Robert Nienhouse property on River Road as an example. If the house sits on a lot that can be subdivided, the back lot may need to meet setbacks, but not frontage. I don't think it has to. In the 1980's, under the existing regulations existing in 1989, Jean Pease was to swap land with an abutter, but it didn't go thru. Before I make formal
application, if there is a problem I want to know about it.
Chairman asked CEO Paul Charron to comment. There is a 50' minimum frontage requirement which was addressed in a memo to Town counsel. She would review if necessary my December 12, 2002 memo. Mr. Tetreault is correct on the 50'. A minor subdivision is limited to 2 lots and the minimum
Frontage is 50' in the VC and UR for a 2 - lot subdivision. The Subdivision Regulations refer to a 2-lot
Planning Board Meeting February 25 2003 (continued) Page 2
subdivision that doesn't meet the requirements. Discussion on definitions (Street Frontage). How the house is situated will influence how the plan is done.
Randy Tetreault - where the house is there is no town water and sewer, rear lot may be 50' frontage. There is a building there now. Discussion on 75' frontage possible requirement.
CEO Paul Charron - Section 4.22 of the Subdivision Regs requires 50' minimum frontage for a 2-lot subdivision.
John Fitch - asked about the plan presented.
Randy - this is in the UR zone.
Brad - discussion on the table of permitted uses.
Randy Tetreault - read from PB minutes of January 23, 2001 Page 2 - Jackie Brooks, Ten Rod Rd. asked about their right-of-way and questions as to whether a road would have to be put in to Town standards to subdivide their property. Subdivision regulations require any subdivision which is greater than 2 lots, that the roads must be to Town Standards. At present with a 50 foot right-of-way you can subdivide limited to a 2-lot subdivision one time. The question was asked if this was a right-of-way or road?
CEO Paul Charron read from Sections 3.03 and 3.04 of the Zoning Ordinance and that this refers to Section 1.12 only. The front lot must have the minimum requirements of the zone.
Brad - this current Zoning Ordinance refers to today, not existing. He read the definition of a rear lot.
CEO Paul Charron - remarked about major and minor subdivisions. An acceptable practice in the past has allowed the development of rear lots for minor subdivisions.
Jim Horgan - we need to have a general consensus here.
Charlie King - if there is history of approvals we need to do our homework for next meeting.
John Fitch - I don't see any problem. I don't see why the board would refuse it.
Ann Alexander - this is a lot where 2 residences could be allowed. Discussion followed on previous decisions.
Brad - I'm not in agreement.
Chairman Horgan - put this on the March 4, 2003 Workshop agenda. Have the CEO Paul Charron get an interpretation or do we need to redefine the 50' frontage - clarify.
· Tom Demers - discussion for Site Review for proposed new building to house coffee/donut franchise & extra retail/office space for lease with a drive-thru service window for donut shop (Tax Map R31, Lot 25). Bob Talon, Survey & Design is here to represent Tom Demers and is working with him on his plans. Tom wants to make a plan which makes everyone happy - he wants to get feedback and direction. He and Bob have questions on Site Review vs. Zoning Ordinance Regulation discrepancies. Bob Talon presented the 1st conceptual plan to the board. There is a requirement in one place for a 50' setback in the Site
Review Regs. vs. 20' in the Zoning Ordinance. In the Site Review Regs. there is no parking or pavement within 10' of the road. There is a contradiction of 30' here. Zoning doesn't include paving in any area. I would say Zoning overrides the Site Review Regs. Discussion on parking and driveway width around the building.
Bob Talon - we need feedback from the PB.
CEO Paul Charron has reviewed the plan. The 50' setback may be a problem that can be worked out. This is a conceptual plan.
John Fitch - asked about the right-of-way off the state road and discussed the plan with Bob Talon. There is 34' from the building to the right-of-way.
Tom Demers - would like to have a waiver on paving to 100' of the State right-of-way. Tom said he has been granted a variance from the ZBA for a donut shop and possible retail. Discussion on number of buildings allowed. In the Site Review Regs. Section 6.06 G. All buildings shall be set back twenty (20) feet from the front boundary and thirty (30) feet from side and rear boundaries. The zoning ordinance doesn't preclude you from paving to the property line.
Bob Talon - we need clarification on this. He questioned the setback for the building. We need a waiver for the pavement issue. Discussion on state right-of-way. Bob Talon presented a new conceptual plan with
Planning Board Meeting February 25 2003 (continued) Page 3
different ideas for the PB to review and make recommendations. This plan meets the building 50' setback from the road (54'). We would like a waiver to add a parallel parking section, and we would like a green area which will shrink the area of paving. The total number of parking spaces is the same (25 on this plan, 28 on the other).
Chairman Horgan - what will the building consist of?
Tom Demers - the latest concept from the franchise is a stick-frame building similar to Bill Tsiros's building across the street here. The franchise is in the process of changing their building looks. The size of the building is in the variance request.
Chairman Horgan - what will you house besides the donut shop?
Tom Demers - possibly Taco Bell on the side and some office space. I can put another retail business in there according to my narrative. I provided this to the ZBA. The building is to be 38' x 60'.
Ann Alexander - motion to recess at 7:55, Brad 2nd, motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 8:00 p. m.
Ann Alexander - read the variance narrative submitted. Discussion on building size. Tom Demers said the company can adapt to the size he wants 38' x 60' but they usually do a 40' x 40' building.
Bob Talon - they do a site plan and then locate the building, etc. Bob is showing the building as a big square.
Tom Demers - I don't want a building any bigger than 38' x 60', just big enough to do what it needs to not interfere with what is in the rear.
John Fitch - you need to tell us the exact size building it will be. Tom said it will be 38' x 60'.
Charlie King - 50' setback on building is an issue, and waiver on paving on front of the parking lot were discussed.
Tom Demers - what overrides the Site Review Regulations or the Zoning Ordinance? What is allowed for seating (1 spot for 2 seats)? The Site Review Regulations control the paving issue per Bob Talon.
Brad - read the Zoning Ordinance Section 1.05 Compliance With Other Codes. As specified in RSA 676:14, whenever the requirements of this Ordinance differ from the requirements of another existing local code, the provision that imposes the greater restriction or higher standards shall be the controlling provision. This same principal shall also apply where local codes differ from State or Federal codes. He said the stricter applies. Discussion on Section 2.08 Industrial Business District (IB) (C) Special Considerations. Discussion followed on parking and ZBA Notice of Decision as well as the narrative submitted to the ZBA. It was suggested Tom may need to go back to the ZBA with a more detailed plan on the size of the building and parking.
Charlie King - parking cannot be in front unless you get a variance.
Chairman Horgan - we recommend you go back to the ZBA.
Charlie King - is this (what is presented) according to your interpretation - it appears you cannot have parking in front of the building. If you could design the building so parking is in the rear this might be an option. Discussion on ZBA and PB procedures.
Chairman Horgan - go to the ZBA for a variance.
Bob Talon - discussion on waiver for additional parallel parking in front less than 10' off the right-of-way. The 2 plans presented were discussed.
Hiram made a motion to recess, Brad 2nd, motion carried at 8:20 p. m. Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p. m.
· Chairman Horgan - any other new business?
Discussion on the Selectmen's Rep being absent by Margaret Russell and that there should be an alternate Selectman appointed to attend in his place. Margaret referenced RSA 673:11 - Designation of Alternate Members.
Planning Board Meeting February 25, 2003 (continued) Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P. M.
· Review of Site Review Application continuancy pursuant to court order for 51 Bunker St. (Tax Map U10, Lot 37) by Craig Lancey for 7-unit apartment building plus existing building. Engineer Dave Berry from Berry Surveying & Engineering is representing Craig Lancey. He has addressed concerns on the plan showing how drainage for storm water is to be handled. Discussion. Mr. Berry explained the outlet to the detention pond with regard to the 25-year storm. The trash rack, a 5" hole with cage at the end of the pipe to protect leaves and other trash and the inlet end from blocking up. An extra entrance on Bunker St. an
area at the rear of the existing building is dedicated as open space. The flow of water - 500 gallon reservoir will be supplied to take over for excess demand of water. Another is possible if needed. Additional land to be dedicated to the town for a right-of-way to Bunker St. A berm will help keep water retained.
Hiram asked about a culvert.
Dave Berry said the unpaved area does not create a lot of water flow.
Chairman Horgan to CEO Paul Charron - does this meet requirements requested previously? CEO said "yes it did.
Ann Alexander - discussion about water and where it would go.
Brad - are there final plans? Yes. Discussion.
John Fitch - asked what buildings will go and stay. Dave Berry explained this referencing the plans.
Brad - asked the use of the metal storage building. Is it an accessory use to the buildings? Is it storage for tenants belongings. Discussion on this. Brad asked if we should be approving a plan that does not tell what this is for.
Craig Lancey - it is an accessory use.
CEO Paul Charron - he has submitted a plan showing the Quonset hut will be used for storage of materials for (repairs, maintenance, etc.) building, tool truck snow removal equipment, tenant storage, etc. These are in his file folder in the office. Based on what is turned in, it would be impossible to make another determination.
Charlie King - this is not an issue for this meeting. Items 1, 3, 9 and 10 were to be addressed.
Brad - again questioned use of the "accessory building."
Craig Lancey - it is labeled as an accessory use according to the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion.
CEO Paul Charron - he has presented detailed information on how he is going to use it.
John Fitch - he is going to use it for 7 units.
Charlie King - drainage questioned. How can we know this 5" pipe flowing onto adjacent property is going to be able to work properly? If the lot is developed more, how are we preventing "more" runoff?
Dave Berry - that's why there is a detention pond and figures are based on peak flows in a 25-year storm event taking into consideration paving, runoff from buildings, etc. (12 hours is peak flow after a storm).
Charlie King - flow is directed into one area?
Dave Berry - showed contours and explained sheet flow at peak storm (25-year storm).
Charlie King - are we making the problem worse?
CEO Paul Charron - the flow is reduced to an absolute minimum. If you walk the property you can see the flow. Discussion. The flare at the end will, or should take care of this. We did look at this.
Ann - asked about the triangular "grassed swale" and possible eroding of the stone wall from the water and if it would be in danger. Dave Berry explained the grassed swale slows the water down allowing it to flow along the stone wall at a slower rate. He said it would not be in danger.
Brad - the use he has suggested is not allowed. Contractor storage is not permitted. We were told he would have an office and apartment building.
Tom Drew, 46 Bunker St. - questioned the 500 gallon water holding tank. Is it for when water pressure drops? What will abutters use for water when pressure drops?
Dave Berry - the overall drain will remain the same. The building will depend on usage and draw on the 500-gallon reservoir. It is a 1" line going in.
Tom Drew - questioned cold water. What prevention is being taken that water won't be contaminated.
Planning Board Meeting February 25, 2003 (continued) Page 5
Dave Berry - it is protected (backflow and normal maintenance procedures).
John Fitch - explained the system as he discussed it with Dale Sprague. It is also something he was familiar with.
CEO Paul Charron - checked with Dale Sprague. It will comply with the 2000 Plumbing Inspection Code. It will be set up so water to units is not contaminated. Ray Pender the State Plumbing Inspector has also reviewed this.
Tom Drew - questioned the metal building and shuttling equipment to other sites. None of us know if it's for other units.
Brad - we do know if he gets approval for something he's not approved for, the CEO can police it.
Craig Lancey - every building I own has its own use for equipment.
Jane Wingate - in the PB 8/27/02 minutes the CEO said the Quonset hut may be used for what is approved How do you enforce that? It should be for this building only.
Chairman Horgan - the plan now says it is an accessory use to this property. It is our understanding that this is an accessory use to the building.
Brad - I think the CEO answered that by saying he could take his truck off this property and use it on other properties.
CEO Paul Charron - I don't see anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance where it is allowed.
Brad - read "accessory" definition.
CEO Paul Charron - if you have equipment on your property you can use it elsewhere. There are properties all over town doing this same type of thing.
Rita St. Pierre - your analogy is ridiculous. He shouldn't be gong down the road with it elsewhere.
Margaret Russell - we have a construction company and we had to come and get permission for our business. This doesn't make sense. I know what its like to listen to this stuff (equipment). I read the minutes and his intent was to move this around, he's just re-labeling it.
Stephanie Nachez - we will call and complain when it goes down the street.
Rita St.Pierre - I recently bought my property and thought it would be "quiet.'
Craig Lancey - the owner of the house should have told you what it was when they sold the house.
Barry Elliott - questioned water. In this area it is a problem. Has anyone provided an analysis on usage on Bunker St.? Discussion on this. Dale Sprague says it is O. K.
CEO Paul Charron - Dale did look into it. The applicant is responsible for what he provides to tenants. Dale did do a pressure test.
Margaret Russell questioned sidewalks (this was not on the final list to be resolved. It was previously taken care of in notes on the plan. She questioned 9 or 7 units. This was changed at previous meetings from 9 to 7 units. Will there still be 21 occupants?
Chairman Horgan - this issue was resolved.
Margaret Russell questioned trash. Dave Berry showed a dumpster on the plan. This was also resolved.
Jane Wingate - questioned the number of bedrooms and number of children that could be anticipated. How many kids to our schools?
Charlie King - if the stated accessory use is for the building, then he should get a Special Exception from the ZBA.
CEO Paul Charron - he's a landlord doing his own repairs on his own property.
Charlie King - building maintenance is not listed as a use.
CEO Paul Charron - it's not in the table of permitted uses.
Chairman Horgan - you need to decide whether to make a motion or not to accept this revised plan.
Ann Alexander made a motion to accept the revised plan as presented at this meeting, Hiram 2nd, Gerald White and Brad Anderson opposed, 3 in favor (Hiram, John & Ann), motion carried.
Discussion. John Fitch said if anyone has a problem with the accessory use, put it in writing to the CEO to deal with it.
Brad - if you are going to have equipment leaving at 6:30 a. m. to work on another property, then I can't vote on it. Craig said he isn't even up and out of the house at 6:30 a. m.
Planning Board Meeting February 25, 2003 (continued) Page 6
Hiram made a motion to recess at 9:25 p. m., Ann 2nd, meeting reconvened at 9:35 p. m.
· Review of Site Review Application continuancy pursuant to court order for 53 Glen St. (Tax Map U10, Lot 114), for a 4-unit apartment building plus existing residence. Craig presented 4 new plans with issues from last meeting resolved and put on the plan from engineer Tom Varney. A 12" culvert has been added to match the culvert across the street. Craig explained - discussion followed.
Brad - questioned the waiver for the 10' driveway entrance.
Chairman Horgan - it is O. K.
Charlie King - is the driveway acceptable?
CEO Paul Charron - our Zoning Ordinance makes provision for stacked parking. This would also apply to this entrance.
Hiram Watson - questioned wetlands setbacks being met. This is not an issue. He would also like to suggest that arborvitae shrubs be planted. They make an excellent buffer.
Craig Lancey - I planted white pine because they are fast growing.
John Fitch questioned headlights. He will be planting white pine alternately 10' apart and they can be any heighth wanted. They are good insulating buffer. Craig said he would look into arborvitaes.
Chairman Horgan to CEO Paul Charron - is there any reason not to accept this plan?
CEO Paul Charron said no.
Brad Anderson made a motion to accept the plan as presented, Hiram 2nd. Brad stated this is a lot better plan than before, all in favor, motion carried.
Chairman Horgan to Craig Lancey - take what you heard here tonight seriously regarding comments made on the Quonset hut issue.
· Brad brought up a discussion on abstentions vs. no vote at all. He feels if someone abstains, then you must be willing to list a good reason for abstaining. This will be discussed further possibly at a workshop session.
· Ann Alexander brought up Roberts Rules of Order. In the book, when someone is recused because of involvement, unless they've been arrested, they can speak on issues being presented.
Brad - there are several flavors of Roberts Rules of Order. We should state from which Rule of Order, at best it is fuzzy. Discussion on the intent of the recusing issue . When the public is asked to speak, anyone can speak.
Chairman Horgan said we will discuss this at a workshop session. Discussion followed with Jane Wingate on this subject.
· Chairman Horgan said there will be a workshop session on March 4, 2003 regarding review of the punch list for RSA Development, LLC. The PB will meet with legal counsel at 6:30 p m. at this meeting.
· With no further business to discuss, Hiram Watson made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 p. m., Gerald White 2nd, motion carried.
APPROVED
__________________ __________________________________
Jim Horgan, Acting Chairman Date
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
