PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Jim Horgan, Charlie King, Ann Alexander, Hiram Watson, Troy Robidas, Bill Tsiros,
Don MacVane
Selectmen’s Rep: Barry Elliott & Matt Scruton (Alternate)
Staff Present: Paul Charron & Fran Osborne
Public Present: Planner Mike Garrapy, Randy Orvis, Kimberly Lampros, Priscilla Crivelli, James
Melchionda, David Hurvitz, James Aube, John Huckins, Wayne Sorrentino, Morris
Pigeon
· Chairman Horgan brought the meeting to order at 7:05 p. m. Minutes of June 3, 2003 were reviewed. Discussion. Barry Elliott motioned approval as presented, Bill Tsiros 2nd, motion carried.
· SEA Consultants, Inc. Fee Schedule: The amended contract with SEA Consultants was signed by the Selectmen June 9, 2003. Charges will be by the hour & vary by person doing the work. Fee schedule attached. The PB will decide which plans will be reviewed. SEA will give an estimate before going for engineering review.
Ann Alexander – asked procedure on plan review. The collection of fees could be after the PB decides it is necessary for review, then collect the fee before coming back. Charlie King agrees with Ann. As a board, we need to collect when the PB determines review is needed.
Jim Horgan – way back we decided to go through the CEO, then planner. We need to be consistent on what we do. Plans go to the planner and he will make recommendation whether it needs engineering review. Discussion on roads being involved. CEO can at least give an applicant an idea of what to expect.
Mike Garrepy – suggest everything to the planner. If a road is involved, it automatically goes to the engineer and will be ready for PB review. I have an up front flat fee of $65.00. Discussion. Any application before the PB should come to me. Mike’s time will be documented. A public hearing will need to be held when it is ready for fees to be formally adopted. CEO – make dollar amount for certain things.
Jim – add line “subject to change without notice.”
Bill Tsiros – discussion on subdivision by parents wanting to give their children a piece of land.
Barry Elliott – asked if town department heads are doing reviews. CEO – yes. We try and have them review before any heavy investment is initiated. Once a plan is accepted a review is done again to iron out problems up front. This should be part of the procedure.
Mike Garrepy – there’s no legal requirement of an applicant to do this.
Barry Elliott – there may be times when this Dept. Head meeting does not happen. There was discussion at the last meeting of Dept. Head input. Discussion on how to accomplish this. The Dept. Heads should be giving their input. Do this before coming to PB review.
Mike Garrepy – Dept. Head review is strongly recommended.
Barry Elliott – I’d rather see it happen before the applicant gets here to the PB.
Ann Alexander – Wetlands should trigger an engineering review.
Charlie King – discussion on “issues” and cost of bare minimum review.
Hiram Watson – asked if a simple 2-lot subdivision charge would be $65.00.
Mike Garrepy – there would probably be a 2 hour minimum even on simple subdivision. Developers appreciate this. Small homeowners may agree if they stop to think about it.
Jim Horgan – we need to have Mike Garrepy submit fee schedule in order.
Motion by Charlie King to have Mike Garrepy fee schedule for discussion at the July 15, 2003 meeting, Hiram 2nd, motion carries.
Planning Board Meeting June 17, 2003 (continued) Page 2
· Voluntary Merger Kimberly Lampros (Tax Map R6, Lots 158 & 159). After review by the PB, Ann Alexander motioned to approve the Voluntary Merger for Kimberly Lampros as submitted, Troy Robidas 2nd, motion carried.
· Lot Line Revision by David A. Delpozzo continuation, Knotty Knoll Circle (Tax Map R44, Lots 29 & 30), to change lot 29 to 1.59 acres & lot 30 to 1.54 acres. Randy Orvis asked to continue to August 5, 2003. Hiram Watson made a motion to continue this public hearing to August 5, 2003, Ann Alexander 2nd, motion carried.
· Application for Subdivision Review by WCV, Inc., continuation, 516 Rte.11 (Tax Map R50, Lot 47), in the IB District. Randy Orvis is representing Phil Sirois of WCV, Inc. He explained they have already received ZBA approval. Randy explained what is to be done to board members on a color-coded plan. There are about 16 acres fronting on Rte. 11 & Ridge Rd. The property is zoned IB. The ZBA granted a variance for 2 residential lots on Ridge Rd. in the AR zone. The 3rd lot is a commercial lot in the IB zone. No use is determined yet. The residential lots are 6 & 3 acres. Lot 1 has
wetlands and steep slopes, lot 2 is a bit steep, but no wetlands. The IB lot has 30’ frontage on Ridge Rd. Wetlands are delineated on the plan. I will stamp the plan with my wetlands scientist stamp. Where runoff comes in it soaks into gravelly soil. There are soils for a septic system. The white area shown on the plan is suitable for a building. The orange color shows setbacks. A letter has been sent to the State but no determination will be received until it is decided what to do. Discussion on a septic system on the 30’ frontage on Ridge Rd. for the IB lot. There is a fire hydrant across the street. The area was shown where a proposed commercial use might be put.
Ann Alexander – if water is not available, can you do a well. Randy said yes. A community well will be done (200’ radius required).
Don MacVane – is it potable water? Randy thinks it is. Discussed Ridge Rd. being used as a means of egress. Randy – I don’t believe they want more driveways on Rte.11. Discussion on 3 driveways. There are 2 residential lots. Don asked how many units. Randy – 2 units on 1 and 1 on the other. Discussion on square footage of homes on these lots.
Tom Demers – what are you here for? Randy – a 3-lot subdivision. This was clarified.
Charlie King – there is no threshold on square footage. I don’t believe there is a set figure.
Bob Talon – I don’t think there is a square footage limit anywhere in town.
Don MacVane – you could end up with a 900 s. f. building. We need to think of the tax base.
Mike Garrepy – asked about wetlands. Randy – these are Class III wetlands by Farmington’s definition. It is not on the National Wetlands Inventory of Class II wetlands. I think it would be wise to get the letter from D.O.T. I would be concerned about access management off Rte.11. Randy – revisions will be made all at once after final determination.
Charlie King – questioned Rte. 11 access, 1 entrance and 1 exit. Randy – I see possibly 2 accesses. I don’t know yet without knowing exactly what you want to do. This is good for economic development on Rte. 11. Discussion. Ann discussed saving some bushes in that area and Mr. Sirois will look at these.
Troy Robidas – would you be further subdividing the commercial lot. Randy – no, there is not enough land.
Hiram Watson made a motion to accept the plan per Mike Garrepy’s letter of May 1, 2003, Ann Alexander 2nd, amend to add – need a copy of the letter from D.O.T. based on frontage, Barry Elliott opposed, motion carried. Randy Orvis said a boundary survey was conducted.
· Application for Site Review by Tom Demers continuation, 516 Rte. 11 (Tax Map R31, Lot 25), change of use for residential mobile home to drive thru coffee & donut shop, retail/office space. Bob Talon is representing Tom Demers, Tom is also present. He presented the latest revised rendition of Tom’s plan showing the latest issues. We would like your input and ideas. Discussion on parking. We are looking at a 36’ x 60’ building, 22 parking spaces, parking area to be paved and striped, a 1,750 gallon septic system. All drainage will remain on site. There are well drained soils. There will be grass swales and leaching
Planning Board Meeting June 17, 2003 (continued) Page 3
· catch basins will collect 1,400 gallons a day. Paving would go from access to the lower part of the property. There is a 3-1 slope, a sidewalk, a lighted entrance, drive thru & business sign. Renewed driveway permits are applied for. D.O.T. has incorporated entrances into the proposed work on Rte. 11. Vegetation on Urquhart’s side, grassed area in front will not be a concrete island.
Jim Horgan – the application doesn’t look complete. CEO Paul Charron – the revised plan shows revisions. Mike Garrepy & Paul Charron have not seen the new plans.
Tom Demers – we are looking for input.
Jim Horgan – tell us what you want and we’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. He questioned if the corporation chain changes their mind on location of the building, what about access, impact, deceleration lane, etc. Bill Tsiros – There will be a divided island for turning & entering. Bob Talon explained the existing & proposed work per D.O.T.’s limit of work.
Jim Horgan – asked about handicap access.
Barry Elliott – Mike Garrepy needs to review. Are you aware of this cost which is passed on to you? Have Mike Garrepy review & bring back his comments. Questions on retail/office space & donut shop.
Bob Talon – we’ve considered all that. Discussion on what we need. We would like a conceptual meeting.
Tom Demers is willing to go through the ZBA process again.
Charlie King – is drainage going to continue toward the back to swales & catch basins? Discussion on this drainage and sheet flow.
Bob Talon – the swales allow groundwater to recharge to get water back into the ground.
Charlie – is there a reason a wider entrance & exit could not be used (a slower radius).
Bob Talon – D.O.T. prefers a 90 degree radius. Each entrance & exit will be labeled. Parking in front is eliminated. We’ve put the building back to 34’ which is an improvement.
Ann Alexander – questioned handicap spaces being reflected on the plan. She also questioned the grease trap & putting it back further because of driveway. Discussion with Bill Tsiros on this.
Hiram Watson – asked about design on catch basin. Randy provided a diagram & explanation they are like a dry well.
Tom Demers – there is only the glass shop and machine shop there now with only 1 guy there.
Troy Robidas – questioned building entrance & exit, walking area, traffic direction. Discussion on building itself.
Jim Horgan – bring a plan of the building. Bob Talon - they have been looking at different building styles, even a cape-style building. Jim - a dumpster is not labeled on this plan.
Barry Elliott – on the plans, locate leach plan, certification of operation, grades & elevations around building, parking all areas, lighting for complete site disposal, plan as integrated with state plan – show it. Is town water existing – if so show. He questioned fire hydrant, telephone – electric wires, handicap access, curbs, landscaping, etc.
Bill Tsiros – parking lights, don’t direct toward traffic. Corner building lights will be utilized.
Hiram Watson – discussion on drainage. Bob Talon – parking lot is crowned to allow drainage to back and sides.
Tom Demers – questioned the restaurant meeting state requirements. Discussion on this.
Written narrative, waivers, are needed. Jim suggested Tom Demers get with CEO Paul Charron and the Planner Mike Garrepy. Fees take place with plans underway also. Jim – we want a complete plan.
Mike Garrepy – would like to meet with Tom Demers and Bob Talon.
Bill Tsiros made a motion to continue to August 5, 2003 and for Tom Demers to meet with CEO Paul Charron & Planner Mike Garrepy, Ann Alexander 2nd, motion carried. Mike Garrepy – you were denied a Special Exception based on the existing structure. Are you going back to the ZBA for rehearing. Tom Demers said yes – July 3, 2003. Don MacVane is seated for Bill Tsiros who has to leave at 8:35 p.m.
Troy Robidas made a motion to recess for 5 minutes at 8:35 p. m., Don MacVane 2nd, meeting reconvened at 8:45 p. m.
Planning Board Meeting June 17, 2003 (continued) Page 4
· Application for Subdivision by Governors Rd. Realty, LLC continuation, (Tax Map R1, Lot 1-1), for
16-lot subdivision on the easterly side of Governors Rd. Richard Marsh is representing himself. Troy Robidas is off the board. This is my 3rd meeting. The reason for continuance was to review results of the plan. I have received state subdivision approval. The state was notified the plan was being revised.
Mike Garrepy – looked at revised plans & did not see a reason to contact him – no issues (see attached review). Recommend conditional approval as attached. Waivers note on lat, driveway notes. A more detailed traffic analysis would be required for the remaining land if subdivided further. Additional lots would require further analysis. No public input.
Ann Alexander – I would like to see some type of agreement on open space for original lots as well as undeveloped space. I’m worried about developing straight on the road vs. a natural front. Discussion.
Richard Marsh – does open space have to be in Farmington. Can it be in Milton? Ann Alexander - concern of ruining the look of a country road.
Don MacVane – if we’re pro open space, whether its one side of the line or the other we should welcome it.
Richard Marsh – has no problem with open space & would like it to be on the Milton side. No problem with open space.
Don macVane – questioned size of s. f. of homes.
Richard Marsh – this will be in the covenants.
Mike Garrepy – 15% open space shall include tract 1 & 2. Discussion on 15% of the approximately 98 – 100 acres plus 15% of the 15 lots to be developed. Discussion on apartment building with 5 acres.
Richard Marsh – open space requirement – can it be part of house lots?
Mike Garrepy – can be an easement – it could be fee simple owned by an association. Discussion. Need restriction or easement to be done.
CEO – read open space requirements from Zoning Ordinance.
Richard Marsh – not opposed, 15% of the remaining acreage 94.88 acres & lots 1-16, not including 5-acre tract with apartment building.
Don MacVane – 15% of existing lots (1-15) & 15% of the undeveloped land remaining.
Hiram made a motion to approve Governors Rd. Realty LLC Subdivision conditional on Mike Garrepy’s memo June 16, 2003, upon development of the remaining area described as R1, lot 1-1, + 3 acres shall be required in addition to open space requirements at time of development, Ann Alexander 2nd, motion carried.
· Capital Improvement Program – The Farmington School District gave us their portion of the CIP as the final part to complete the CIP in total.
Don MacVane – who did you with with? Hiram - the Supt. Of Schools & Financial Director.
Don MacVane – get whoever is involved to come and explain their report submitted.
Hiram Watson – this is the 1st time the School Dept. has worked with us.
Priscilla Crivelli – is it already in our taxes?
Jim Horgan – this indicates where capital expenditures are. It’s already built in. Some things are funded. Discussion. We don’t know how accurate it is. We’ve had 10 years of waiting for this.
Hiram Watson – this is a “wish list” for the future.
Jim Horgan – is there a bottom line dollar amount. Anything above $10,000 is included.
Hiram – there are no operating costs included here.
Barry Elliott – if we use the CIP as a basis for impact fees, you impose dollars in direct relation to a specific item within 7 years. Discussion on this.
Mike Garrepy – this is the foundation by which you charge impact fees. Discussion on overcrowding, new schools.
John Huckins – the CIP doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be done. It’s a plan for the future.
Don MacVane – have a couple people from the PB work with the budget committee. Only a proportional amount can be charged. Discussion on Barrington’s process of charging impact fees. It’s based on building permits. Site improvements were also discussed & $10.00 fee for each lot created.
Planning Board Meeting June 17, 2003 (continued) Page 5
Ann Alexander – we need to have the CIP completed to move forward.
Don MacVane – building permits trigger school impact, subdivision road triggers road costs. Discussion. Subdivider pays on impact generated from traffic study.
Jim Melchionda – you have up to 7 years to put in the improvements on impact fees.
Barry Elliott – the taxes went up for many reasons including school budget. Discussion on covering services due to increased traffic.
Ann Alexander – I would move we adopt the School Budget CIP, Charlie 2nd, Barry opposed. Discussion. Barry – we should send this back to the School Dept. for clarification.
Jim Horgan – I would motivate our selectmen to have a 1 to 1 conversation with the School Dept.
· Discussion on memo from Town Administrator on building being locked.
Anne Alexander made a motion to recess at 9:45 p.m. (Anne is leaving), Barry 2nd, Charlie King opposed, meeting reconvened at 9:55 p. m.
· Building Permits on Private Roads. CEO Paul Charron provided packets to board members for “Building Permit Process for Private Roads Criteria (attached). CEO Paul Charron recommended the PB recommend selectmen approve building permits at Lancelot Shores. The PB should weigh in on development issues, not by building permit by building permit. The law says the PB should tell the selectmen where that development should take place. (There are 5 building permits from the last meeting). There is also a letter from the president (Bethany Perkins) of Lancelot Shores Improvement Association (attached). The Master
Plan dictates where planning development should take place.
Jim Horgan – the town has been issuing building permits right along.
CEO Paul Charron – the association has expressed the desire to keep roads in a “campy” sort of system. If we tell them they have to meet town standards, this may create a problem.
Charlie King – as a PB we should not be concerned with maintenance and upgrades.
CEO Paul Charron – the property owner must sign a “Private Road Liability Agreement.”
Discussion on whether the roads can be petitioned to the town by land owners to have the town take the roads over. If there’s an association, wouldn’t we want to encourage them to maintain their own roads.
CEO Paul Charron – as a private association, they wish to keep the roads in a campground, recreational atmosphere.
Don MacVane – RSA 674:41 discussion. Wasn’t Lancelot Shores continued for research of this RSA? What does RSA 674:41 impact on the town?
Wayne Sorrentino – last year we spent over $13,000 on plowing roads. The Fire Dept. has not had a problem nor the police.
James Aube – what’s the scope of RSA 674:41? CEO explained in July 2002 RSA 674:41 addes (d) to add “private roads” to this RSA which he read. The Board of Selectmen determine whether to issue the building permit. The PB recommends to the board of selectmen. The Applicant must sign the “Private Road Liability Agreement.” Discussion on entrance road to Lancelot Shores. There is development on entrance road that isn’t even part of Lancelot Shores. Discussion on tax revenue.
Jim Horgan – this resulted from the law stating we need to do this according to RSA 674:41 & develop Private Road Standards which were added to our developing a roads standard.
CEO Paul Charron – discussed “Criteria for Building Permits on Private Roads” and draft “Building Permit Process for Private Roads.” Based on what I’ve learned, we should issue building permits at Lancelot Shores.
Barry Elliott – discussion on Lancelot Shores having the road taken over. If someone signs a “Private Road Liability Agreement,” then the person who signs the agreement cannot hold the town responsible.
Jim Horgan – can the association cover the “Private Road Liability Agreement?”
Don MacVane – our concern was to look at RSA 674:41. Is it appropriate for the president of the Association to sign this as well as lot owners?
Planning Board Meeting June 17, 2003 (continued) Page 6
Charlie King – its in the best interest of the town to bring road standards up to town standards. I would motion to get feedback from the Fire Dept., Road Agent and Police Dept. and pass on their recommendations.
Morris Pigeon – discussion on Lancelot Shores being singled out.
James Aube – discussion on Yonder Ridge and their roads being no where what Lancelot Shores roads are. Lancelot Shores was definitely targeted and singled out. Other developments were approved. Covenants like Yonder Ridge are not followed. Covenants have been explicit & you’ve issued building permits for less than 20’ setbacks.
CEO Paul Charron – replies were not received from Clark Hackett because his mother died, Fire Chief was on vacation and Chief of Police didn’t respond. Discussion.
Troy – we should issue the building permits.
Barry – questioned private road agreement. CEO explained it is only the applicant, not the road.
Hiram Watson – I agree with the CEO. In comparison to some other roads, it’s a pretty good road.
Jim Melchionda – we pay our own plowing.
Morris Pigeon – there’s only a few lots left in Lancelot Shores to build on. Discussion.
John Huckins – the details are the board of selectmen’s responsibility. The PB makes the recommendation.
Charlie King’s motion was amended to not require input from Road Agent Clark Hackett, Fire Dept. & Police Dept. (only if available) and to grant recommendation for approval to the selectmen, Hiram 2nd, vote 3 yes – 2 no, Jim abstained, motion carried.
CEO Paul Charron discussed the “Building Permit Process for Private Roads Criteria” and schedule for public hearing.
Don MacVane made a motion to take the “Draft” off “Building Permit Process for Private Roads Criteria”, Troy 2nd to accept this as an official document. All in favor to post this for public hearing on July 15, 2003. Mike Garrepy will provide language for public hearing. Discussion on adding to section 3.10 of the Site Review Regulations and to Subdivision Regulations under Section 4.17.
Mike Garrepy – where would it be appropriate to put this? You must post this for a public hearing.
· With no further business to discuss, Hiram Watson made motion to adjourn at 10:30, Charlie King 2nd, all in favor, motion carried. Minutes recorded by Fran Osborne.
APPROVED
Jim Horgan, Chairman
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
