PLANNING BOARD MEETING WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Gerald White, Bill Tsiros, Charlie King, Jim Horgan, Don MacVane, Troy Robidas,
Hiram Watson
Selectmen’s Rep: Barry Elliott
Staff Present: Ernest Creveling, Town Administrator and Fran Osborne, Planning Secretary
Public Present: Sharla Rollins (EDC), Lorraine & George Meyer, Steve Mayo-Eric Pearson-Harold
Peterson (Equivise); Helen Constantine, Joan Funk (Board of Selectmen), Pat & Bob
LeClair, Jane Lantier, Scott Roberge (Police Chief), Gerald Mylroie (Planner-SRPC),
Jerry McCarthy (Board of Selectmen), others not signed in
· Chairman Horgan called the meeting to order at 7:15 p. m. Minutes of January 6, 2004 were reviewed. Hiram made a motion to approve as presented, Troy Robidas 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
· Ron Olszak of Bristol, N. H. – preliminary discussion on feasibility of opening an equipment sales business on Rte. 11 (part of Edith Richardson property). He wants to put up a building to house tractors, construction equipment, construction trailers, etc. CEO Jack Dever says this type of business is allowed there. Mr. Olszak was called and couldn’t be present as he was at a funeral. He will be re-scheduled for February 3, 2004 Planning Board Meeting under New Business.
· Alarms, Business, Systems & Users Ordinance – Police Chief Scott Roberge presentation. Chief Roberge said this document was done about 6 years ago (1998). Most cities have this ordinance for businesses. We respond over 200 times a year to false alarms. This would ensure that systems would be accurate and would save respondents and their vehicles.
Don MacVane – asked if people “have to install it?” Chief replied this system would go through a dispatch service which alarm is through, then Strafford Dispatch. This would ensure that we know where the alarms are (up to 5 alarms a year are allowed, then they would be fined). Don MacVane asked about people installing their own in-house alarm and taking care of it on their own. If we have an internal system we wouldn’t be required to have a permit. Chief Roberge – yes.
Barry Elliott – how will you internally know where to go? Chief – dispatch has the capability through their system to respond. Chief - we respond to many homes for false alarms (issues of not maintaining systems). Barry is E-9-11integrated into this system? At some point will this be coordinated? GPS could be used (map system). Barry - if someone had the maximum number of alarm responses, what is the town’s responsibility?
Chief Roberge – this ordinance has been challenged in this state. We would continue to respond but would send a letter to the home or business owner. Just because you have an alarm doesn’t mean we’ll respond – we may not have the manpower available at the time, but that’s infrequent.
Barry Elliott – where would funds go? Chief – back to the town. There would be about 200 alarms. There would be a base fee of $25.00 a year, then $25.00 over 5 calls on false alarms. This can be adjusted or changed by the town. Senior citizens are not charged.
Chief – this ordinance is not in effect. I did other ordinances also but none have been put into force.
Bill Tsiros – would this mandate any new business in town having to use this system? Chief – yes.
Charlie King – why do you feel a homeowner should apply to the town if he has his own system?
Chief – we have no way to know a contact person in some cases where an emergency might arise or if a problem comes up.
Charlie King - if the homeowner had the new E-9-11 address wouldn’t that help?
Chief – we don’t have GPS technology yet. The E-9-11 system shows residences on maps. The map is large and cumbersome.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting January 20, 2004 (continued) Page 2
Charlie King – out of 200 alarms what is the problem percentage? Chief – 5 – 10%. Charlie – when owners are contacted, do owners respond? We continue to respond and communicate with the owners. I have concerns over the fee structure – discussion. Deal with the 10% that are a problem. Can we do some sort of non-fee structure. Most people are good about taking care of their property. Chief – there’s liability for the town responding, vehicle wear and tear, etc. We need to know information on systems in homes/businesses.
Gerry White – I would like to see new owners on the system.
Troy Robidas – how many false alarms a day – 3 a day sometimes, then none some days, it is inconsistent. We respond to 500 – 600 calls a year. How many burglaries are a burden? Discussion. Chief – If a person has an alarm it discourages problems. People have expectations if an alarm goes off, for us to be there. Finding addresses can be a problem.
Troy Robidas – fees is a problem. Why are senior citizens exempt? Chief – most 65 and over homeowners are on fixed incomes. Maybe charge fees based on income. If you have an interior system, is there a $25.00 fee? Chief – not if hooked up to some alarm system company. Discussion on fees. Things can be changed. This will be specialized specifically for those on the system. At present we have nothing in place at all. I have no authority to charge when over 5 calls on false alarms have been made.
Jim Horgan – this was a concept presented at a TRC meeting. Discussion on the ordinance itself. Items – 98-17 – where? 98-20 – nature of permit? Road map needs to go with the permit.
Chief – we are careful on setting expectations and could be challenged on calls and response time.
Don MacVane – discussion on prioritizing.
Jim Horgan – administration fees up front discussion.
Don MacVane – check with other municipalities on fee structure. Discussion on systems proposed and ones in place.
Jim Horgan – date of expiration on permits. Why 5 responses before charging? Chief – I did research in other towns that would fit Farmington. Most likely these fees have gone up since 1998. Item 98-24 B. – should Selectmen be the authority rather than Chief of Police? Discussion. Item 98-26 C. – where money is concerned, it should be the Selectmen.
Jerry McCarthy – why has this come to the Planning Board?
Jim Horgan – it was brought to us at the TRC Dept. Head Meeting for review.
Charlie King – we may need a permit, but I’m not agreeable to fees. Fee structure may prevent people from doing this. Discussion. I agree false alarms should be charged at some point. Once we impose this ordinance, people may not be aware. If you get a call from someone who doesn’t have a permit, give them 30 days to obtain a permit. Discussion on imposing fees.
Bill Tsiros – discussion on over 65 – if they are exempt from the local property tax, use that as a guideline to charge the fee. Consensus of board was that was a good idea.
Gerry Mylroie – the TRC Committee will work with the Police Chief to present this to the Selectmen.
Barry Elliott – what will require a new business to be a part of this? Discussion with Chief on adding this.
· Proposed Cluster Ordinance. Barry Elliott made a motion to postpone this until after the public hearing, Hiram 2nd, motion carried.
Public Hearing
· Additions/Amendments to Zoning Ordinance continuation to:
(1) Add Section 4.06 entitled “Elderly Housing.”
(2) Amend Section 2.09 “Boundary Description of Districts”
Specifically - Industrial Business District (IB)
- Commercial Center District (CC)
Gerry Mylroie - this is the same document with a couple of refinements (see attached Town of Farmington
Elderly Housing Overlay District – per Residential Open Space – Cluster Development by Conditional Use
Permit – Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance dated January 20, 2004.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting January 20, 2004 (continued) Page 3
There are 3 action items for recommendation to the Board of Selectmen per attached memo to Planning Board, January 20, 2004 regarding proposed zoning amendments – commercial center and industrial business districts boundaries and an Elderly Housing Overlay District.
(1) Approve the proposal as presented
(2) Approve the proposal as amended per the Planning Board
(3) Recommend the proposal be denied
The PB revisions were what was distributed to you and reviewed with the ZAMPS Subcommittee. Discussion on treating this as a Special Exception. Gerry Mylroie - you could do that with review by the ZBA. The issue is – there would be no development standards for the PB to operate, setbacks, etc. I would not recommend this. I would like to focus on (3). Amend per Planning Board discussion. Take amendment from the Board of Selectmen and covenants (example by developer) and frame that for the overlay zone in all districts except AR and IB. I have attempted to do this. It has been reviewed by town counsel, town boards and ZAMPS Subcommittee (making suggestions per their recommendations.)
Harold Peterson (Equivise) – as you know you are acting on a zoning amendment. Item #3 is fine. The ZAMPS proposal is not in accordance with what the Board of Selectmen presented and should not be presented.
Gerry Mylroie – Zoning Ordinance definitions – discussion. ZAMPS wanted the overlay to be used in the SR and SR-1. Language has been added to the base district. Discussion on dimensional requirements, green space, density to be consistent with other zones, and screening of storage tanks on site. The other option is the cluster approach option. It identifies the residential Cluster Development Ordinance being proposed. It is a good proposal. It has good density bonuses and other features. The PB has authority to review Site Plans and impose conditions on town plan development prior to approval. The decision before the town is to establish boundaries to allow for an Elderly Housing establishment. Look at this as a standard
for an ordinance to ensure a quality development in this town.
Chairman Horgan – opened to public comments.
Jerry McCarthy – I have a problem with the overlay district in the whole town. (RSA 354A:15. Discussion on 55+ (RSA 354A:15 - 1 resident being 55+ and no other household members having to be 55+). Jim brought up disability not being included either. Can this be addressed in covenants?
Gerry Mylroie – discussion on each dwelling and 100% of occupants must be 55 years of age or older. Discussion on children that could be in these units. Statistics show school-age children are minimal.
Jerry McCarthy – school children is a concern. The covenants will decide who lives in units. Discussion.
Gerry Mylroie – this is an ordinance for the town – 100% of the development must have one 55+ or older.
Jerry McCarthy – how do you know impact on the school? Discussion – study by National Association of
Homebuilders. Discussion on school budgets and new residents with no ties coming to this town – this will
affect voting or could possibly be adding kids. This could add 20% increase in water usage. We were going
to increase water lines on Rte. 11. This is “no kids allowed” technology. Us old folks are just trying to save
a few dollars to go to the casino. Keep an eye on what we’re doing. I would look at Special Exception. We
need to decide what this community will look like 15 – 20 years from now.
George Meyers – discussion on ZAMPS proposed comments.
Harold Peterson (Equivise) – I don’t believe a Special Exception can be utilized because you haven’t established an Elderly Housing Ordinance. The “any other” uses not listed in all areas was discussed from the Table of Permitted Uses in the Zoning Ordinance. We don’t have authority to discriminate on age so I don’t believe you can use Special Exception.
Paul Parker – has the board read into the record the ZAMPS proposal (see attached letter read by Paul Parker).
Charlie King – read 2 references from ZAMPS.
George Meyers – discussion on meeting of ZAMPS Subcommittee with 3 members – Brad Anderson, Charlie King and Paul Parker – meeting was not posted for this particular meeting. Discussion on generalized notice on the door at the Municipal Offices Building but not showing specific dates or time.
Charlie King – I beg to differ with you – it was posted.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting January 20, 2004 (continued) Page 4
Troy Robidas – we’ve got Applied Economic Research (AER), Gerry Mylroie (SRPC). Is it your feeling this is appropriate? Is this drawing of the new line appropriate?
Gerry Mylroie – it’s a decision for the PB. There are times when a community is faced with proposals they might want to take advantage of. It may not be an appropriate site for (IB) District due to the topography. We don’t want strip development. I think the continuation of the zone with housing in back can be a mixed use for that particular area. We need the PB review process which is done for any change in zoning. The nodes will be included, easements for access to adjacent properties as well, landscaping on the front of the property. It can be made possible through architecture, etc. It could be beneficial and I don’t think it constitutes “spot zoning.” I don’t think water is an issue here. It
will mean more usage certainly, but not excessive.
Gerald White – I do like Elderly Housing but $200,000 units won’t be local Farmington people who would be in the $140,000 average.
Charlie King – we don’t want to prevent Mr. Meyers from using his land but if we rush this we’ll be right back where we started. I would like to see it thought out.
Bill Tsiros – the ZAMPS Subcommittee seems to be taking over. This is an opportunity. This is a gift to us – they “came” to us. We don’t want to let them fly by. There are property tax savings here. Discussion. As an adopted citizen of this country, I found there are “normal” people here. The ZAMPS Subcommittee will oppose everything presented. Let the voters decide in March. The PB will address concerns. I would like this project to go as it was proposed.
Hiram Watson – I have faith in Gerry Mylroie’s proposal. We have an opportunity here. The land is not suited for the IB District. I’ve seen what George Meyers can do and see no evidence of problems. We can iron out things as they come to the PB later on. I support this as originally proposed by the Board of Selectmen.
DonMacVane – no conflict (he is an alternate not seated to vote this evening).
Barry Elliott – the overlay district I support as a 55+ person who has lived here 50 years and enjoys the climate here (see attached letter).
Barry Elliott – I make a motion to approve the proposed Section 4.06 entitled “Elderly Housing Overlay District” to be added to the Zoning Ordinance and amend Section 2.09 “Boundary Description of Districts – Industrial Business District (IB) and Commercial Center District (CC) as presented by Gerry Mylroie dated January 20, 2004 and received by the PB at this meeting, Hiram 2nd, 3 for (Barry Elliott, Bill Tsiros, Hiram Watson), 3 against (Charlie King, Gerry White and Troy Robidas), Jim Horgan voted for, resulting in 4 to 3 vote in favor of recommending to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the March 2004 Town Warrant, motion carried. Motion by Hiram Watson to recess at 9:00 p. m., Gerry White 2nd,
motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 9:15 p. m.
(3) Adopt a proposed “Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance as part of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Farmington (continuation).
Motion by Charlie King, 2nd by Bill Tsiros to take up the “Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance.”
Discussion on 0rdinance. Barry Elliott made a motion to recommend the “Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance” to the Selectmen for inclusion on the March 2004 Town Warrant, Charlie King 2nd. Discussion on this ordinance that was originally scheduled for public hearing on January 6, 2004 and continued to January 20, 2004 for final vote. Vote was 5 in favor, 1 opposed, motion carried.
· Proposed Cluster Ordinance. Discussion by Don MacVane on III. b), c), g), j), (not in the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance). I would avoid those kinds of terms. I think people have agendas that have put this kind of terminology in; III k). Discussion.
Gerry Mylroie – one of the concerns from the conservationist, planner, development perspective is it is not a beneficial way to develop land – it cuts up the land in a not efficient way. The whole idea has
visual notion of a “conventional subdivision.” The environmental, sociological, conservation type development has become more attractive to enable efficient use of the land. They are part of the development. Are these objectives being met – the PB makes judgments based on knowledge as a voluntary
Planning Board Workshop Meeting January 20, 2004 (continued) Page 5
member of the board. This is traditional, standard kind of language you are going to find – b) conserve tracts of land discussion. It is better to have open space that links together in the landscape. This is good language and should help you analyze site plans before the PB.
Don MacVane – III Objectives – is opposed to use of terms in b), c), g) and j).
Barry Elliott – I’m totally confused with this whole thing. The interpretation is what scares me. If we had someone consistent all the time, I could see it. Discussion. V a) b) – more direction than that, d) open ended – we can change our minds. IX. Discussion. I’d look at this and throw it away. As a developer I wouldn’t go this way. X. Discussion. XII. Discussion on 40% open space – it should be an encouragement instead of a detriment. Discussion on view sheds. What and where.
Jim Horgan – identify view sheds to preserve these view shed areas.
Gerry Mylroie – I understand why you feel this way. This is a new way of thinking to develop and use the land. The whole notion of the bonus is to encourage the developer. Someone adopts these view shed areas as an asset to protect. If this were a private developer, he would have three times this amount of requirements. I agree we could change the tone a bit. Discussion on a cover sheet. I suggest a pre-application meeting, but not a public hearing. Need to give and take. Give guidance to the developer. This can get you what you want but provides bonuses. Approaches: (1) state exactly what you want; (2) use a natural resource-type of project, vary lot size because of soil type and what soil will carry.
Jim Horgan – why can’t we define? Can we do that – take into consideration natural features?
Hiram Watson – identify view sheds – we shouldn’t take away without informing an applicant. Discuss with the applicant. Define what a “view shed” is.
Barry Elliott – discussion on interpretation of view shed. Rte 28 was given as an example in the Alton area.
Gerry Mylroie – use this incentive by giving bonuses, you still have the discretion.
Jim Horgan – we want the developer to know what he needs to do.
Bill Tsiros – language discussion. Application procedures – shouldn’t all applications be the same? Discussion on open space and zone requirements (lot sizes). Would open space be taxed the same?
Gerry Mylroie – the tax should be equal or better. Check on current use – different rates. Weigh benefits to tax base. It should be taxed the same way.
Jim Horgan – the deed would define the open-space area a little further. Discussion on taxes on open space and density bonuses and taxes on association land (open space around buildings).
Charlie King – V. a) discussion on preliminary meeting vs. public hearing. Mike Garrepy, Planner came up with the formula in IX. Discussion on baseline density. Non-buildable land can be open space (wetlands, etc.). This approach was decided because it is the least costly for the applicant. We tried to make it consistent for all applicants. Discussion. This approach is voluntary by the applicant.
Gerry Mylroie – discussion on a bill before the legislature for Cluster Development.
Barry Elliott – I make a motion to continue the proposed Cluster Ordinance to February 17, 2004, Charlie King 2nd, motion carried.
· Capital Improvement Program, Farmington, NH 2004 – 2009 updated 2004. Copies of the new CIP were given to Planning Board members to review and bring comments back for the next meeting for the PB to vote on recommendation to the Board of Selectmen.
· Discussion on ZAMPS Subcommittee members. Hiram Watson - ZAMPS members should not take it upon themselves to write letters directed toward somebody. Charlie King – I disagree, there are people on this board who use the paper to clarify their issues.
Bill Tsiros – I would like to make a motion to withdraw the chairman of the ZAMPS Subcommittee. As a member of this board I request his resignation, Hiram 2nd. Discussion. Bill Tsiros – ZAMPS Subcommittee Chairman – he does not support the feelings or vision of this town. Discussion on minutes not being done and the “right to know law.” Hiram Watson – my reason is I’ve done projects and what I’ve
said has not been used or done. Last year they changed objectives. Paving policy was discussed. Brad was
Planning Board Workshop Meeting January 20, 2004 (continued) Page 6
chair at that time. I didn’t want to cause problems. There was one question that was on the survey 3 times. Brad is not leading in my opinion.
Bill Tsiros – the way he designed the questionnaire is a violation of the law. I don’t want my name used because of possible retribution. People shouldn’t have to have their name on the survey. I think this board should appoint a neutral individual. Motion was 3 in favor, 3 opposed, Jim Horgan broke the tie in favor of removing the Chairman of the ZAMPS Subcommittee, Brad Anderson, final vote 4 in favor (Bill Tsiros, Hiram Watson, Barry Elliott & Jim Horgan) 3 against (Charlie King, Gerald White & Troy Robidas), motion carried. Jim Horgan will draft a letter to Brad Anderson.
· With no further business to discuss, Bill Tsiros made a motion to adjourn at 10:35 p. m., Charlie 2nd, motion carried.
APPROVED AS AMENDED at Planning Board Meeting 2/3/04
Jim Horgan, Chairman
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
