PLANNING BOARD MEETING
May 20, 2003
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Jim Horgan, Charlie King, Hiram Watson, Ann Alexander, Bill Tsiros
Selectmen's Rep: Barry Elliott, Matthew Scruton (Alternate Selectman)
Staff Present: Paul Charron and Fran Osborne
Public Present: Brad Anderson, John Radigan (town counsel), John & Jane Wingate, Don Rhodes (Norway
Plains), Attorney Jim Shannon, Attorney Malcolm McNeill, Ben Locke, Dave DeJager,
Packy Campbell
· Chairman Horgan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p. m. Minutes of May 6, 2003 were reviewed. Jim said Bill Tsiros has been appointed by the selectmen as a full member from an alternate. Hiram Watson made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, Ann Alexander 2nd, no discussion, motion carried.
· Chairman Horgan said the ZAMPS presentation will be held after the RSA Development Review. He informed the board Dale Sprague and Clark Hackett have been invited to give input on the private roads development.
· CIP - Hiram Watson informed the board members the school portion of the CIP was not approved last December. If we don't approve it, we will not have a complete CIP. In July or August we'll start more CIP meeting updates.
· Chairman Horgan read mail from the Housing Partnership inviting board members to an open house at 25 Maple St. and 29-31 Spring St. on May 28, 2003 at 4:00 p. m. at Mad River Meadows, 29 Spring Street.
· Charlie King has been appointed as Liaison between the ZBA and PB.
· A contract between planner, Mike Garrepy and the Town of Farmington for his services was tabled until the Selectmen meet. Hiram - motion to table this to the next meeting, Ann Alexander 2nd, motion carried.
· Voluntary Merger, Carol V. & Ronald R. Perreault, 464 Ten Rod Rd. (Tax Map R23, Lots 10 & 11). The purpose of the Voluntary Merger is to allow expansion of the existing auto body business in order to not be nonconforming as there is not enough land to expand on the one lot.
· Charlie King stated Hiram Watson did a good job on the Dan Cutter application and that it worked out so well for all parties concerned. Hiram made a motion to recess for 8 minutes at 7:20 p. m.. Meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
· Building Permits on private roads - Yonder Ridge Development will be continued to June 3, 2003.
7:30 p. m. Public Hearing
· Cluster Development Review Application continuation by RSA Development, LLC for Dick Dame Lane (Tax map R34, Lot 1-8 & U9, Lots 18 & 19). Town counsel John Radigan introduced himself to the board members and is here in Sharon Somers absence. Ann Alexander is off the board for this hearing. The current plan was received. Attorney McNeill - we have done what we intended from recommendations at the last meeting. The engineers have met and I have talked with Sharon Somers. A list was prepared which Mike Garrepy does not have with him tonight. Mr. McNeill - we agree with 99% of the comments requested. He
explained the process of conditional approval is common and that Mr. Garrepy was familiar with conditional approvals. No building permit can be issued without final approval. This avoids further public hearings and we agree on the issues as well as technical compliance. Activity in the last 2 weeks has
Planning Board Meeting May 20, 2003 (continued) Page 2
been very significant. Mr. McNeill went over the Final Conditions of Approval for RSA Development, LLC (attached):
#7 - ownership of common area - shall be owned & maintained by homeowners association. Conveyance of common space to the town except for common space amenities (swing sets, sheds, barbecue pit, badminton or trampoline).
#12 - "no certificates of occupancy" shall be issued by building inspector until he has certified, with as-built drawings for the infrastructure improvements & foundation certification for units, & premises are built in accordance with the approved plan." Discussion on as-built drawing requirement.
#20 - 12' paved connector to Sycamore Blvd. shall be constructed & operational prior to issuance of any C/O's. We may possibly want to widen this in the future.
#22 - phasing agreement - we would like to reverse year 1 & 2. Year 1 to be 23 units and year 2 to be 37 units with further condition that any units not built in year 1 and/or 2 be carried over to year 3 and thereafter.
#27 - note on plan - utilities located along proposed roadways may be located above ground & all utilities from roadways to individual homes shall be located underground.
#21 - performance bond - Mr. McNeill - it has been my understanding the selectmen approve the bonding and we believe this should be according to phasing infrastructure. We would like flexibility to not have to bond the whole project. We disagree with the bond being issued on the "whole project." Everything will be done from a safety perspective. We would like to do what has been the consistent process. The bond document to be reviewed by town counsel, SEA, and town engineer.
#28 - landscaping buffer with abutter Ben Locke - Mr. McNeill said they had negotiated approximately 30' in vegetative screening and offered $1,000 for that. We would like to leave that in the PB's hands.
Mr. McNeill - if you find these changes acceptable, we would like conditional approval. The developer would like to proceed with construction.
Mike Garrepy - a public hearing with notice to abutters must be done before final approval. It is a lot easier for a punch list be given to the applicant to do his homework on. This is not approval, but a list of things to complete. We've met with engineers and legal counsel. If you are comfortable with the approach, then it is up to you.
Bill Tsiros - asked Mike Garrepy if the list covers issues in detail. Discussion.
Charlie King - SEA has reviewed 29 points. Discussion on consolidation of issues. Mike's list does not follow SEA's list of 29 issues.
Mike Garrepy - we will expect a letter from SEA Consulting that these conditions are met. Discussion on review. Mike Garrepy said he met with Dale Sprague, Rob McCoy of SEA Engineering, Don Rhodes of Norway Plains and CEO Paul Charron.
Charlie King - we do not have this list.
Mike Garrepy - you will get this at the compliance review. The PB should trust the professional engineers for their expertise. Discussion. SEA will be reasonable and professional on their review. It's the applicant's own risk to proceed in this fashion. It makes little sense for PB review before the legal counsel review.
Hiram - asked Ben Locke what he wanted for landscaping. He doesn't like arborvitae. The impression is that $1,000 is all that is being offered & Hiram recommended Mr. Locke act on this or the PB could make a decision.
Hiram - is Dale satisfied with what is being proposed? Mike Garrepy said the water and sewer must be worked out to Dale's satisfaction as part of the approval.
Barry Elliott - this meeting is premature and it's way too soon. Mr. McNeill has offered changes. SEA has made recommendations. I don't understand the big rush. Why can't we wait until everything is resolved.
Jim Horgan - Mr. McNeill mentioned he was looking toward conditional approval this evening.
Barry Elliott - the court case with the ZBA vs. PB is an issue. I have opinions on what is right and wrong. After conversations between Dale & Clark, a proposal/policy will be presented next Selectmens meeting on who will be responsible for the pump station, maintenance, etc.). I see way too many issues to deal with this
Planning Board Minutes May 20, 2003 (continued) Page 3
right now. More engineering and the question of soil stability needs to be carried out.
Charlie King - I agree to a certain extent. We need to keep working on issues. We've just received SEA's report. I would like to see legal review. We'll be here 6 more months if we don't start doing something. Our responsibility as a board is to see that everything is accomplished. The bridge needs more engineering.
Bill Tsiros - regarding SEA review, I would rather have Dale Sprague decide what he wants. He has a continuity on what he does rather than what SEA "would like to see." Discussion on bridge.
Mike Garrepy - applicant has agreed to resolve SEA issues. Another SEA comment letter will be issued as to conditions being met. One approach is to get some of these items whittled off the list.
Jim Horgan - aren't solutions being worked on before the chain reaction can take place.
CEO Paul Charron - SEA's rep is confident things are being taken care of. The pump station is all brand new to the town and involves adopting a policy. Dale Sprague is looking into technical pump details. The Board of Selectmen need to determine town policy on utilities. We have professionals to deal with technical issues. If conditional approval is given it becomes part of the plan (Dale, Clark, legal, and SEA). The town and applicant could come to some sort of agreement as to structure and framework, otherwise we keep chipping away at the list.
Attorney McNeill - we want closure on this project. We don't want to recreate this project all over again. All the parties are familiar with the conditional approval process. The list is drafted by your people. Discussion on list. These are the issues the Town of Farmington needs to resolve to commence with this project. We agreed to your issues list. Discussion on #7, 12, 20, 21 & 22. Mike Garrepy will revise the list of 29 final conditions are per the PB discussion on these issues (see attached list for revisions by Mike Garrepy).
Jane Wingate brought up the legal issue of the ZBA vs. PB and its legitimacy. The PB shouldn't approve this in a hurry. Barry's newness is not necessarily a deficit.
Brad Anderson - Barry Elliott is talking with a lot of sense. The court case is an issue. I don't understand the need for conditional approval before issues are resolved.
Attorney McNeill - if we don't prevail in the lawsuit we do not have approval. Charlie King brought up the list of items and Attorney McNeill said the list is here in front of you right now.
Bill Tsiros - will the Selectmen make a policy on water and sewer. Mike Garrepy said #9 covers this. It will be modified to agree with what the Selectmen adopt as a policy.
Barry Elliott - I haven't seen this proposal yet. It may have changes, need legal review, etc. He asked to note on the plan what and where you going to do sheds, swings, etc. in the common area. He brought up the bond issue, sequencing, gravel removal/reclamation. Discussion on road length of phase I. The real planning of this project started in the last couple or three months. You may be 6-8 weeks away from approval.
Jim Horgan - we're at the point of approval. Do we accept this list of 29 items for compliance hearing in 2 - 3 months for completeness?
Bill Tsiros - made motion to approve the proposed conditions listed in 29 items as amended (#7, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 27 - see attached) with Mike Garrepy to be responsible for amendments, Hiram 2nd, Charlie King & Barry Elliott opposed, Jim Horgan broke tie by voting in the affirmative, motion carried.
Item that was #28 has been resolved and agreed upon with abutter Ben Locke and Packy Campbell for $1,500.00 allowance for landscaping. Hiram made motion at 9:00 p. m. to recess, Charlie 2nd. Meeting reconvened at 9:10 p. m.
· ZAMPS Subcommittee presentation on Interim Growth Management Regulation draft. Brad made a presentation as representative of the group and recommended a public forum for input. This is a finding of fact.
Planning Board Meeting May 20, 2003 (continued) Page 4
Attorney John Radigan - can the town do this? We used a draft we worked up for Peterboro and fine tuned it. No subdivision greater than 2 - 3 lots to allow for small family subdivisions was considered. Most impacts are from larger subdivisions. This will put restriction measures on peoples property in estates, etc. We've identified the conditions. My opinion is these conditions will allow you to adopt an "Interim Growth Control Ordinance." If adopted it cannot go more than 1 year. You can limit building permits and tailor restrictions according to growth. There is space to address issues that need to be addressed. You could also tailor your zoning ordinance to address these issues along with impact fees being put in place.
Brad - can we depict these issues as a basis for an interim growth ordinance. We feel we need to address intense development given the growth of the seacoast area.
Mike Garrepy - does the PB as a whole support this process and language to voters for special town meeting. Before we go any further, is this approach what the PB wants to take? Discussion. Develop impact fees, cluster development regulations. Do we need more input?
Barry Elliott - I'm a little leery on something of such drastic measure. Discussion. I don't think its fair for someone to be able to do something for a year. There are CIP issues that should be part of the CIP, which are not here. I don't agree with some of these facts. The verbage needs to be more explicit. Water & sewer issues were brought up. Assumptions should not be made.
Brad - finding of facts came from a number of department heads, minutes, and research from various areas are available as backup.
Ann Alexander - I think we need to revamp the Master Plan & Zoning Ordinance. I don't know if this Interim Growth Ordinance is the right road to go. If we are challenged, an applicant could take us to court and possibly win which could be costly. We have to educate the voters of the town to understand what they are voting on. Discussion on the CIP.
Mike Garrepy - the CIP does not have to be in place for "Interim Growth Ordinance."
Hiram - I support all these findings of fact. I am concerned with families who want to give their family part of their land. If we had an impact fee in place right now it could be a good thing.
Bill Tsiros - is this an instrument for adopting the CIP. Mike Garrepy - its an interim growth ordinance and findings of fact for same. Bill suggested looking at Exeter's impact fees just adopted. Mike Garrepy - its time to look at Master Plan revisions. I agree with #2 & #4 - people are forced to sell farmland, and we did vote on a 3-acre minimum for the AR District; #8, we have funding for the landfill closure. We have 1/2 of our capacity now for water and sewer. The problem is the effluent. When more density is in the downtown area, you have kids with problems that cause problems for tax payers because of the cost of educating these kids. We should be more specific.
Charlie King - I'm glad to be on the subcommittee and do agree with the findings of fact. Discussion on new homes being added. Maybe we should look at limited building permits for some subdivisions. Discussion with John Radigan - he advises municipal clients (board of selectmen), through good zoning, density, scattered & premature development, increase to 5-acre lots for building which decreases the number of services. Impact fees are a favorable way to go. This is a fair way to develop the town.
Brad - the Master Plan is not really speaking to the issues of the peoples vision. We don't have time to work any more on the Master Plan. What about Cluster Regs? It's a complicated document. We don't have time to catch up.
Bill Tsiros - we have a subcommittee. I think the whole PB should be part of the subcommittee. We need their expertise (legal & planner) to get a broader view after we develop a document we agree on.
Jane Wingate - we have legal, planner & "babble" about the list presented. We need to manage growth in this town. Go over each one of these items. Growth is a problem. We're seeing Farmington as a potential growth area.
Hiram - explain the findings of fact. Is the language we need there to support limited growth (A - F). Mike Garrepy - this would be done at a PB public hearing. You could have a Special Town Meeting. The goal of where you want to get to is what is important. Do you accept the concept - this is what is important.
Hiram - you can put restrictions on subdivisions for number of lots.
Planning Board Meeting May 20, 2003 (continued) Page 5
CEO - there are 2 goals - to stop and give time to work on the plan - what's the plan? This is a tool and the means. There are a lot of decisions to be made.
Charlie King - motion to table for the Planning Board to consult and bring back to the next meeting June 3, 2003, Bill Tsiros 2nd, motion carried.
Ann Alexander - can the PB give the subcommittee some direction? Look at the Master Plan and provide a list of recommendations for subcommittee to look at. Jim mentioned the findings of fact and Mike Garrepy said it should be accepted at a public hearing.
Mike Garrepy - in 90 days a special town meeting should be held after Findings of Fact is accepted/approved by the PB.
John Radigan - look at the Master Plan to get at issues where density changes and other issues need to be done. The school budget is an issue.
Brad - work plan is in place to get work done and identify additional tasks to be completed. We feel the Zoning Ordinance is so deficient we need to address that after this interim growth ordinance is in place.
Barry Elliott - if we have a public hearing, the PB would have to adopt or not adopt - if adopted you have 90 days for restrictions to start. You could see a flurry of activity. We need to really think about this. We have talked about a Saturday all day meeting with Dept. Heads, Economic Development, ZBA, PB, CC. We will discuss items in order of importance. We have so many issues to deal with, I hope everyone can be available. It's a huge undertaking.
Jane Wingate - how big should this town get before we do something about it. How much growth can be absorb?
Barry Elliott - one of findings of fact is this community cannot support itself. Until we get our tax base established, we've got to deal with our industrial and commercial base.
Jane Wingate - put everything on a screeching halt. Discussion on Rte.11 "strip malling."
Bill Tsiros - what is the role of the selectmen in this?
Brad - our plan was to come to the PB and then the selectmen. It's not a selectmen issue.
Jim Horgan - massage restrictions, consider family subdivisions and elderly housing.
Charlie King - the next subcommittee meeting we have enough to do. Discussion.
Brad - will the PB members even consider this interim growth ordinance?
Charlie King - let's sleep on it and review for next meeting.
Bill Tsiros - we need "all the PB members" input.
Ann Alexander - discussion on respecting each other's viewpoints. I support the need for work on the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We may end up kicking ourselves if we scramble too quickly on the Growth Control Regulation. Before we can come to a screeching halt, we need to look at being self sustaining. We can't sustain our infrastructure. We don't get a tax base by not developing the Rte.11 Corridor, we need to go in this direction. Discussion.
Jane - slow things up with the tools you have.
Brad - has a "Growth Management" lecture series from Municipal Law Lecture series. Will copy for PB.
Barry Elliott asked that the Interim Growth Management Regulations be put in the Board of Selectmen boxes.
Jim Horgan - we'll discuss this again on June 3, 2003.
· Building Permits Issued on Private/Class VI Roads. CEO Paul Charron said he has 7 building permits submitted on private roads to be approved. Discussion on the current road standards from the subdivision regulations from 1976 which are in effect. Road length was also discussed. Establish a standard at the high end and waive certain aspects as you go down the road requirements. Dirt road standards also need to be in place. Need input from Dale Sprague and Clark Hackett.
Mike Garrepy - new roads need to be looked at and updating the 1976 standard. The new building permits would have to follow the new more stringent policy. Class VI roads requirement was also discussed and the need for the Board of Selectmen as well as the PB knowing requirements. Come up with road standards we
Planning Board Meeting May 20, 2003 (continued) Page 6
can all live with. Go case by case utilizing PB, road agent, Board of Selectmen. The PB provides guidance to the Board of Selectmen.
CEO Paul Charron - the law says the PB or Board of Selectmen can deny a building permit on a private or Class VI road.
Mike Garrepy - how detailed can you get. Do you say, O.K. you agree to bring the road up to ……………...standards. Class VI and private existing roads should be case by case.
Barry Elliott - discussion on fair standard. Develop a minimum road standard for new development which must meet that criteria. Discussion on Association and difference between road and driveways.
Mike Garrepy - I would let the road agent set a minimum road standard. If you have a driveway, set standards.
Charlie King - set minimum but allow flexibility before the Board of Selectmen review. Discussion.
Mike Garrepy - if you set a minimum standard, you have to go by it. Discussion on unique situations that don't meet the minimum standard. There should be a release valve such as waivers. Have a minimum road standard. Discussion on building permits submitted for approval. There are so many questions on these building permits. Mike Garrepy - take case by case.
CEO Paul Charron - discussion on "road liability' and NHMA's recommendation to do all or none. Have a Homeowners Association (it can be 1 person). It's difficult for people to understand. Discussion on Great Pine Ave. paving in place (specifications) and a dirt road off Dick Dame Lane.
Charlie King - couldn't we ask for an association?
Mike Garrepy - I would suggest an inventory of private roads and how many houses are on these roads.
Private road discussion will go to the next workshop June 17, 2003.
· With no further business to discuss, Barry Elliott made a motion to adjourn at 10:55 p. m., Ann Alexander 2nd, motion carried.
APPROVED
_________________________________ ____________
Jim Horgan, Chairman Date
| 
