PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Jim Horgan, Charlie King, Hiram Watson, Ann Alexander, Brad Anderson, Troy Robidas,
Gerald White
Selectmen's Rep: Absent because of voting
Staff Present: Fran Osborne
Public Present: Tom Demers, Ben Locke, John Huckins, Mike Garrepy (Planner), Chris Berry (Berry
Surveying & Engineering), Attorney Malcolm McNeill & Attorney Jim Shannon, Scott White, Brad Wingate, Jane & John Wingate, Randy Tetreault, Don Rhodes & Scott Lawler (Norway Plains Surveying & Engineering)
· Acting Chairman Horgan called the meeting to order at 7:05 p. m. Ann Alexander was seated for Norm Russell, Charlie King seated for Marty Chagnon. Minutes were reviewed from February 25, 2003 - Hiram Watson made motion to accept as presented, Ann Alexander 2nd, Troy Robidas abstained because of absence, motion carried. The minutes of March 4, 2003 were reviewed. Brad motioned the minutes be amended on page 3 - line 20 (Mike Garrepy's comments). After utilities, etc. are involved. It would be unfair if you are imposing this only on this applicant, but you have to start somewhere, Troy 2nd, Ann Alexander
abstained because she was recused from this portion of the meeting, motion carried.
· Tom Demers - discuss ZBA decision on variance. Tom came to discuss his plan submitted to the ZBA last June 6, 2002 (copy attached & read by Brad Anderson). Tom was given to understand the plan was part of the ZBA recorded presentation. Setback issue was discussed per the ZBA minutes. His building size was discussed (40' x 68').
Jim Horgan - we need traffic flow for the proposed building, building dimensions, designated parking spaces.
Tom Demers - the building size is in the ZBA minutes and the fact that it would be placed where the mobile home is at present.
Charlie King - discussion on setback from the road and parking.
Tom Demers - there will be no parking in front of the building. I want to be clear on what was intended on the plan presented to the ZBA.
Charlie King - discussion on being specific about the ZBA decision on the building setback.
Mike Garrepy - the ZBA granted approval on the narrative (all members). Discussion on this.
Charlie King - need variance of 50' setback.
Jim Horgan - have CEO present this to the ZBA rather than the applicant at the next ZBA meeting April 3, 2003 as to the ZBA's intent at the June 2002 meeting at which Tom Demers received variance approval.
Brad - they gave two separate variances in this one appeal.
Public Hearing 7:30 p. m.
· Cluster Development Review Application continuation by RSA Development, LLC, for Dick Dame Lane (Tax Map R34, Lot 1-8 & U9, Lots 18 & 19). Gerald White & Ann Alexander are recused from this hearing. Mike Garrepy (Planner) is here to speak on this application. Mike thanked Fran Osborne for her recording the minutes so thoroughly to be able to review this plan appropriately. Attorney Malcolm McNeill is here to represent Packy Campbell along with engineers Don Rhodes and Scott Lawler, all present to clarify comments. Attorney McNeill said this is his 4th trip here and it has been 19 months into
this hearing. We have been trying to narrow the issues as it relates to this development since the concept of the condominium was presented. I was hoping it would be approved in February. When I came, I suggested working through the 5 points I presented. A work session was recommended. If you disapprove the plan, the applicant said he would resubmit a new application. When we received the 49 comments from
Mike Garrepy (the Planner), after going over this list, I think these 49 issues are broken down into 3 areas
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 (continued) Page 2
(legal, engineering and PB review issues). I would like to identify the engineering issues and I am familiar with SEA Consulting. The only legal issue is the ZBA vs. PB. This is still not resolved. If the ZBA case goes to Supreme Court, they will make a determination. The 65-day extension was granted as 60 days and agreed on December 10, 2002. This list is what the committees came up with. We would like to come up with a final list. Hiram Watson made a motion to grant a 60-day extension to RSA Development, Charlie King 2nd, motion carried.
Brad asked if we were setting ourselves up to have these items completed within this time frame or are they going to come back and ask for another extension.
Attorney McNeill - we would ask for another extension.
Jim Horgan - the plan review falls on the applicant to accomplish this list. If our stuff is to your engineering, then we want to get this within the time frame we feel we can complete to.
Brad - you would ask for an extension if items not completed in 60 days. The list of items to be completed from CEO Paul Charron was presented (attached).
Attorney McNeill - went over the list from Paul as follows:
1. a - e: these were presented in February. The bond is a selectmen matter subject to review by Sharon
Somers & myself.
2. Phasing - the applicant suggested this. I proposed previously that 38 unit be permitted the 1st year
and 22 the 2nd year.
3. Plan review - (numbers 14, 15 & 16 also relate to phasing & bond issues & should be incorporated
into this). The bonding & 2, 14, 15 & 16 should be worked out with Attorney Somers. Engineering
matter can be worked out with review by Mr. Garrepy the Planner.
4. Sidewalk - propose subject to engineering approval.
5. Screening property across the street from project - Mr. Campbell, Mr. Rhodes & Ben Locke will meet and resolve this (fencing may be suggested).
6. School bus issue - it has been established that kids have to walk from this site, busing is not available as it is too close to the school.
7. Green/open space - this is contained in #20 and #21. This is common area on the plan. Outside limited common area is subject to the homeowners association. Don Rhodes explained 25% is required for open space and this plan has 65% open space. This is consistent with the regulations. We will include the homeowners document for the easement.
Malcolm McNeill discussed the private road - recreational space for homeowners is important to them, issues of security and safety, passive or active recreation. We do not feel public access is compelled by your regulations. This is an amenity the home owners want private, not open.
Mike Garrepy - discussion early on, indicated public access would be a component of this plan.
Attorney Shannon - this was raised early on, but at this point we're not inclined to do because of the liability issues.
8. Engineering oversight - we're in agreement - need charges and scope of work. SEA is acceptable.
9. Flooding - this is an engineering issue and we will discuss with consulting engineer.
10. Drainage - this is an engineering issue and we will discuss with consulting engineer.
11. Cleanup on river - we will commit to this.
12. Variance & SUP - legal issue to be resolved.
13. Note on plan no further subdivision - acceptable to us.
14. C/O's issued when development built according to approved plan - we will discuss this with Ms. Somers because this is a phasing project. The project doesn't have to be built out for a C/O to be issued.
15. Road built in its entirety before homes are built - we will discuss this with Ms. Somers.
16. Bonding - this should be in phases and we will work it out with those concerned.
17. Plans being stamped - yes we agree.
18. State permits before final approval - we would like conditional approval subject to state permits being received.
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 (continued) Page 3
19. Note on plan for 60 single-family units maximum - yes we agree.
20. Public access to open space - we spoke on this before.
21. Easement restricting future development - yes we will do this.
22. Emergency exit - yes, we will discuss with the fire chief. It may be possible after 15 homes are in.
23. Escrow funds for engineering review - yes, if a reasonable fee.
24. Sidewalk width - yes, engineering will be discussed with public works and consulting engineering.
25. Extension of time with applicant - this has been done.
26. Reclamation plan for gravel pit - a RSA155-E gravel permit may be applied for is necessary. Brad remarked there is an open pit and no reclamation plan in place. Mike Garrepy would like to see final contours in the gravel playing area - he is concerned about talking this area down. Don Rhodes said the applicant is set on taking that area down - possibly for on site gravel work. Stabilization will be necessary as part of the plan for the site. The lower part will be stabilized as well as the upper area. The play area will be grassed. Reclamation will be done if RSA 155-E regarding earth excavations permitting is required. Mike Garrepy said according to the cluster regulations no work shall be performed in that open space. Don Rhodes - we are at 67% open space. We will regrade this out of the 2 to 3% in the play area. Attorney McNeill - if its an issue we would go to 60% open space possibly.
27. Screening property - we will discuss this with Ben Locke.
28. Bridge removal Dick Dame Lane - DES permitting has been applied for to do this - will discuss with engineer.
29. Verify flood level - will verify with engineer.
30. Verify that road is private on plan (no dedication intended) - this is fine.
31. Revise plan to eliminate graded playing area - we're not in agreement with this.
32. Conveyance of development rights to Town for all common land - we don't care how this done - whatever the town counsel suggests.
33. Plan scale - we'll comply.
34. Limited common area dimensions with bearings & measurements - will be handled with engineering review.
35. Sky View Drive approval for road name by Selectmen - this is fine.
36. Utility plan to be included in plan set - yes.
37. Engineering review storm drainage/road profiles/cross sections - this is O. K.
38. Final water & sewer plans approved by Water & Sewer Dept. - Mr. Rhodes spoke with Dept. Heads and this will be worked out.
39. Required easements to be reviewed by town counsel - this is fine.
40. Verification current taxes have been paid & no liens on property - I don't know why this is a planning issue.
41. Performance bond review by town counsel - this has been addressed and this is fine.
42. Notes on plan, easements that no work (removal or filling), or altering of natural characteristics of open space - we respectfully disagree with this (play area).
43. Sheet 7 show road stations starting at Elm St. - yes.
44. Sheet 9 reflect 20-foot pavement - this is an engineering issue.
45. Emergency exit constructed & operational before C/O's issued (in concept) - yes. Discuss with fire chief for public safety issues & we'll follow recommendations.
46. Cross easements review by town counsel - yes.
47. Assurance of public access (open space easements) - we do not want any public access for reasons stated.
48. Phasing note on plan - yes.
49. Note - any changes require further site review - yes, on any further changes to be made. This is the plan on the table. Is our approach reasonably acceptable to you?
Charlie King - asked about Mike Garrepy's concerns.
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 (continued) Page 4
Attorney McNeill - there has to be an end to these lists being submitted.
Hiram - school bus route - what do we want?
Jim Horgan - based on location, they walk.
Brad - there will be 47 kids being driven by parents coming to the end of Elm St.
Jim - that is not an issue for the PB.
Brad - questioned excess amount of traffic, better sidewalks and entrance.
Mike Garrepy - traffic studies will address this. The School Dept. is who says how the kids are taken to school. I think it’s a done deal.
Brad - can we ask DOT if they have looked at peak time for kids coming to school.
Attorney McNeill - we're playing by the rules. Discussion.
Hiram - flooding?
Attorney McNeill - our engineer is licensed. You will have outside engineering and if he says it's O. K. - it should be O. K.
Brad - we're being asked for them to discuss with our engineer and lawyer. Discussion on flooding issue.
Mike Garrepy - town staff works with the staff and engineer. My job is to guide the process.
Jim Horgan - the engineer "will know this is a concern."
Hiram - cleanup on river.
Brad - DES will recommend a plan and require the crossing to be removed if the PB agrees.
Hiram - I agree with the applicant on #26 and I go along with no public access for liability and privacy reasons.
Troy - Phase I - Don Rhodes explained all buildings accessed from the westerly portion of the loop will be phase II. He also asked about the curb/crash gate. Mike Garrepy provided photos of a mountable curb design used in Exeter.
Jim Horgan - provide an alternate means of snow being piled up at the crash gate. Discussion.
Mike Garrepy - this is better than the crash gate option, but it needs to be maintained in the winter.
Brad - questioned authority being delegated to our agents. They are still subject to the PB's review. Discussion.
Attorney McNeill - I am trying to give the authority to those who are professionals who are best able to advise you. Discussion.
Brad # 7 - Mr. McNeill said we'll do it how you want.
Attorney Shannon - the association may want to do a tennis court here - we will designate this area.
Public access discussion.
Attorney Shannon - when we went to a condominium, we changed the plan and now a different set of rights are in place.
Brad - flooding. Discussion on flooding level at Elm St. low area. Don Rhodes will provide clear data. Discussion.
Brad - reclamation is an issue - I'm not clear on this. Who's responsible for what has or hasn't been done?
Mike Garrepy - yes they do need to incorporate reclamation as part of their plan.
Mr. NcNeill - I will verify the information in RSA 155-E. This is part of the grading plan.
Mike Garrepy - there is a significant amount of gravel that would be removed.
Brad - we don't have a plan that shows wetlands limits. Discussion. In the large portion of the 60% open space - there is very little uplands topography left. This is intense development. I'm not comfortable with grading off the playing area. I don't see the benefit of doing this.
Charlie King - open space 60% - put a figure together of what (tennis court, or whatever) will be done.
Don Rhodes - we'll do the calculation. We'll break it out.
Attorney Shannon - this was previously submitted about 6 months ago by Mr. Rhodes (wetlands vs. uplands).
Charlie King - I agree with Hiram, it shouldn't be accessible to the public, nor should it be a requirement.
Mike Garrepy - would like to talk with town counsel, the applicant and Attorney McNeill. Discussion.
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 (continued) Page 5
Attorney McNeill - are you in agreement with us on the methodology with the issues (engineering, etc.). I would like a vote on this open space issue. I would like to know if the reclamation is mandated.
Brad - I'm uncomfortable with a vote and will vote "no" to the voting.
Attorney McNeill - as a result of this proposal, the applicant will be spending thousands of dollars for your engineering and lawyers. This is a significant issue for the applicant.
Charlie King - wouldn't the next vote be on your client going forward with the play/excavation area.
Attorney McNeill - with regard to the recreation/excavation area, if we're just going to end up in court at the end, then we'll just go forward with it. I perceive this to be a problem if its not worked out. I think some give and take might be appropriate.
Mike Garrepy - perhaps we should investigate a bit further on this issue. Discussion.
Hiram - made a motion to not allow public access to common or open space as designated on the plan, Troy 2nd - 2 for (Hiram & Troy), 2 against (Charlie & Brad) - motion fails, Jim Horgan abstained.
Discussion - Charlie King - why should we feel pressured to make a spontaneous decision right away? Given what we know and that we were not aware I think we should take it under review. Should we consult legal counsel?
Hiram - we asked for one impact study and then another at $9,000. It's too bad Mike Garrepy wasn't here before to help us - shame on us. We need to give a little. I don't think people should be running around in others back yards.
Brad - you will feel different when this is urbanized 20 - 25 years from now. Maybe the applicant would be agreeable to certain public access in another area. Discussion.
Charlie King - review with Mike Garrepy for next meeting as to what's acceptable.
Charlie King - I make a motion to take this under advisement and advise the applicant at the next meeting as to the PB's decision on public access - motion fails for lack of 2nd.
Attorney McNeill - I will speak to Mike Garrepy and CEO Paul Charron on this issue. There are 60 units plus the existing Cameron property. This will be reconfigured with lot line adjustments. We will proceed as discussed. Discussion.
Charlie King - motion to continue to April 8, 2003 to deal specifically with the issue of public access and a revised list collated into engineering, legal and planning board review. Motion failed due to lack of 2nd.
Troy made a motion to continue to April 8, 2003 to discuss the public access to this lot, Hiram 2nd, 1 opposed, motion passed 3 to 1. Discussion.
Charlie King made a motion to recess at 9:05 p. m., Hiram Watson 2nd, meeting reconvened at 9:25
p. m.
· Subdivision Review Application continuation by Bradley Wingate for 4-lot subdivision on Meaderboro Rd./Poor Farm Rd. (Tax Map R24, Lot 2). Chris Berry from Berry Surveying & Engineering is representing Brad Wingate. Gerry White & Ann Alexander are back on the board. Chris has made revisions and notes on the plans (4 sets). Profiles are done and none exceed 15% slope. Erosion control & drainage has been addressed. Drainage would not run onto the town right-of-way.
Mike Garrepy - concern about steep slope conditions. The 3 new lots should receive State approval prior to PB approval. The other issue is easement language on lot 2 to 3 driveway. Have the surveyor identify the area that is legal easement.
Chris Berry - the easement will be shown in the deed. The septic systems are just possible locations where there are soils that will accommodate septic systems.
Mike Garrepy - where is the easement location on the plan. Chris showed this to the PB. There should be an easement separate on lot 3. My concern is that Lot 2-3 be described separately. This gives the PB assurance of an established line. Discussion. Conditional approval could reflect a line table on lot 2-3 on the plan and deed given conditions on this lot. There are on-site water & sewer requirements.
Chris Berry - I can't get State septic approvals without subdivision approval.
Mike Garrepy - this could be a condition of approval.
Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2003 (continued) Page 6
Chris Berry - the driveway will likely not move. Lot 2-1 will not change much, lot 2-2 the septic will be behind the house to flow downhill, lot 2-3 the septic will be behind the house - the house will move uphill. The driveways once stamped by surveyor/engineer cannot change without the road agent or coming back to the PB.
Charlie King - the applicant has stated where locations will be according to septic design.
Mike Garrepy - no test pits are established. Given the slopes on these lots, you need approval on septic systems before PB approval. Septic locations, test pits shown and house location should be shown on plans.
Mr. Wingate does not want pump systems on these properties.
Ann Alexander - he may have to apply for a variance if you do not want a pump system. Will the applicant be back?
Hiram Watson - if he gets State approval on this plan, they will have to redesign. What about grades and elevations?
Jim Horgan - we can conditionally approve the plan pending State DES approval.
Hiram - I don't think this is fair.
Brad - discussion on pump system being a necessity to obtain subdivision approval without state approved septic systems.
Ann Alexander - discussion on standard vs. pump system and note on plan.
Charlie King - lot 2-3 -prove not exceeding 15% slope limit. Have CEO Paul Charron check.
Mike Garrepy - no matter where the system goes on the lot, there are slopes.
Chris Berry - the slopes are 3 to 1. If the system I design won't work, DES will send it back. I have shown there is an area for a design. Your responsibility is not the approval of a septic system - that's the State. I feel this can work. I can put a note on the plan that the Town will not be responsible for septic systems.
Mike Garrepy - you can design 3 homes on 1 lot conditional on minor details.
Jim Horgan - you are not opposed to State approvals.
Charlie King - he's going to rush out and pay for designs for approval and may have to do it all over again if locations are changed. Discussion on procedure.
Chris Berry - we have met the setbacks. Driveways are the responsibility of the owners and recommendation of town highway agent. I show each driveway a 3% area they can sit & wait for traffic (18' wide).
Jim Horgan - easements - table of their own - record in the deed.
Mike Garrepy - require soil scientist and proposed utilities - waive? State approved septic designs discussion. Waiver would be from the state.
John Huckins - 4K area is a buildable lot. I don't see where it needs to be on the plan.
Jim Horgan - closed public portion of hearing.
Hiram Watson - motion to waive the utility plan, Charlie 2nd, motion carried.
Troy Robidas made a motion to approve this plan, Brad 2nd, contingent upon reflecting an easement on the deed. Stamp to be on the plan by soil or wetlands scientist for wetlands. All in favor, motion carries.
Mike Garrepy - Note on plan: no building permit being issued until an approved septic design is received.
Chris Berry - asked why his plan is being singled out?
Motion by Brad Anderson to continue past 10:00 p. m., 2nd Ann Alexander, motion carried.
· Site Review Application for Hawg's Pen by Scott White, Box 111, Rte. 11, (Tax Map R59, Lot 6-1) for proposed café/restaurant and motorcycle showroom (existing motorcycle parts, sales & service). Randy Tetreault of Norway Plains Associates, Inc. is representing Scott White and his proposal. Randy presented a small version of the plan for board members that he will go over with them. The plan shows what's there and updates (color coded). The current proposal includes an attached 32'x36' building addition.. The DOT permit came back on the driveway and septic has been received. Randy read the narrative. This is for renovation and construction a 25-seat café' and after market custom motorcycle showroom. The current proposal will add a small building addition. Lot is 2.48 acres in the IB district. A
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 (continued) Page 7
Special Exception by the ZBA was approved 9/19/02. A narrative was provided by the applicant. Existing entrance will be ingress and egress. Hours of operation will be 8:00 a. m. to 11:00 p. m. 7 days a week. Kitchen is closed at 9:30 p. m. Overhead lighting per site plan. There is paved parking per the Site Review Regulations - 1 space per 3 seats, 1 space per 2 stools & 1 space per 2 employees or 1 space per 150 s. f. of gross floor area whichever is greater. The site is existing gravel. Paving will be over gravel areas. New area - the parking area is 3,160 s. f. with 11 spaces for the existing business. There will be 11 spaces for the new café' with a total of 27 spaces required. With graveled areas included, there are 35 parking spaces
provided, 2 which will be handicap spaces. Signage - the existing sign will be updated and located as shown on plan. An on-site artesian well will service the project as approved by NHDES. There is an existing well which will be abandoned and filled. The new one will be provided for public drinking supply. Electric & telephone lines are proposed to be above ground to the existing service pole and underground to the existing and proposed buildings. The existing dumpster will be screened and serviced by Waste Mgmt. Landscaping is existing. Discussed need for more landscaping. Rough architectural drawings were submitted by Wes Flierl.
Elevation views, floor plan, drainage analysis have been provided. The back parking lot will accommodate sheet runoff.
Brad - discussion on parking area and water runoff.
Randy Tetreault - impervious surface runoff that will not be paved - roof drains will be installed with pea stone around building. Randy said Scott his engineer used the TR55 method of runoff. Discussion on this. Curb lines and pitching pavement to catch basins will help alleviate erosion now being caused. Discussion on sheet flow. On back parking lot there will be straight sheet flow.
Brad - sign size will stay the same.
Randy Tetreault - yes. There will be 2 overhead lights to service the new area, a single pole in the mid parking lot with 2 poles in the back parking area. Direct down lights will be used.
Troy - asked if alcohol will be served.
Scott White - they will serve beer and wine with food. This will not be a bar. Demand will dictate how many meals are served (breakfast, lunch, dinner) and which ones.
Randy Tetreault - Scott White did get approval on the Special Exception he submitted to the ZBA.
Hiram - is there an approved septic system. Randy Tetreault said there was.
Discussion on landscaping.
Charlie King asked about dumpster location. It is shown where it can be accessed for removal of trash and screening is provided.
Gerry White - likes the plan.
Mike Garrepy - would like to review this plan. Do you want to send this out to an engineer on drainage?
Ann Alexander - made a motion to accept the plan as a completed application, Gerry White 2nd, motion carried.
Randy Tetreault - siding on addition will be as existing. On the drainage issue - I don't feel this is necessary for outside engineering but it's up to the applicant. The septic tank is H20 loading and there will be fill 6' deep over it. The only problem is venting. There is a special tank for the grease trap.
Brad - asked about amount of pavement. Randy said 25 - 30% is impacted area on paving.
Randy Tetreault & Scott checked new standards. A new EPA guided federal permit to be filed by the owner and contractor. Make approval conditional on C/O. We are disturbing less than 1 acre. Discussion. Extra paving is due to configuration of building. Sheet flow was questioned. Shouldn't there be a graded runoff on back of buildings with a swale? Due to the closeness of wetlands we didn't want to disturb what's there with vegetation. Discussion. Cape Cod berms will be used.
Mike Garrepy - this is where peer engineering is good.
Scott - we could try and create a swale and Randy Tetreault said we could designate this area of parking spaces to be removed in back. Discussion on snow storage and removal and less parking spaces.
Troy - add guard rail.
Mike Garrepy - does the PB want my review. Discussion.
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 (continued) Page 8
Mike Garrepy - review plan for compliance.
Charlie King - drainage calculations.
Ann Alexander - motioned to approve the plan as presented contingent on the town planner and engineering review with addition of guard rail reflected on the plan, Troy 2nd, all in favor, motion carried. Discussion on SEA Consulting being the peer engineering review of the plan.
· With no further business to discuss, motion to adjourn was made by Hiram, 2nd Charlie King to adjourn at 11:15 p. m., motion carried.
Hiram expressed his gratitude to Mike Garrepy for his being here to review the plans and Jim Horgan for running the meetings so smoothly. Minutes recorded by Fran Osborne.
APPROVED
________________________________ _______________________
Jim Horgan, Acting Chairman Date
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
