PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004
356 Main Street
Members Present: Charlie King, Norman Russell, Troy Robidas, Hiram Watson, Gerald White, Bob Talon
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Fran Osborne, Town Administrator Ernest Creveling, Dale Sprague (Water & Sewer),
Clark Hackett (Highway Dept.)
Public Present: Gerry Mylroie and Corinne Pinkerton (SRPC)
· Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:02 p. m. Minutes of April 6, 2004 were reviewed. Gerald White made motion to approve minutes of April 6, 2004 as presented, Troy Robidas 2nd, Norm Russell abstained, no discussion, all in favor, motion carried.
· Building Permit on a Private Road: Brian Settele (owner), (Tax Map R52, Lot 38, Flowing Brook Rd.). This is a 1.5 acre grandfathered parcel, building permit application is for a 2-story 26’x40’ new home. An approved septic design is attached. Property is located at Yonder Ridge Development off Ten Rod Rd. on Chipmunk Lane. Property Owner’s Association of Yonder Plateau, Inc. has submitted a letter with their recommendation for driveway requirement. The “Private Road Acknowledgment” has been filled out & will be recorded at Strafford Registry of Deeds after approval by Selectmen.
CEO Jack Dever has reviewed the building permit application and recommends approval. Troy Robidas made motion to recommend this building permit for Brian Settele to the Selectmen for their review and approval, Gerald White 2nd, Charlie King said a letter of driveway approval from the association is included. Clark Hackett informed the board members at the TRC they discussed this & the town really has no jurisdiction in private developments. It was a decision of the TRC to have the association approve the driveway locations. They maintain their own roads. This absolves the town of problems.
Charlie King – if the association asks for Clark’s opinion, would you do it? Clark said he would if asked.
Paul Parker – discussion on letter from the association.
Norm Russell – if the developer did not do the road according to specifications & driveways to lots as well, if they petition the town to accept the road, would this be a problem?
Clark – I would recommend the town not accept if the road isn’t to town specifications. In the past they’ve done what has been requested. Swales and culverts were discussed.
Troy Robidas – if culverts aren’t the right size, it could spill onto other property. I don’t think the association is qualified to make those decisions. Roads could wash into the water. I don’t think that’s a good practice.
Norm Russell – I’m thinking about the developer who hasn’t consulted the town (safety on driveways, culverts not adequate) for road standards. It may save problems down the road.
Bob Talon – as a board, I agree it might be in our best interest to have Clark review these roads. Discussion.
Clark – I did go out and look at the lot you are considering & it should be O. K. for culvert size & driveway location. We were out there putting up road signs and I looked at the location while we were there.
Troy Robidas – I don’t think the TRC should be making that decision.
Charlie – the function of the TRC & responsibilities will be discussed.
Gerry Mylroie – I think the standards procedure is Clark usually checks out the driveway location for approval. The TRC is not acting or making a recommendation. Discussion.
Charlie – it is in the best interest of the town that Clark approves what the association submits. There could be a situation where a developer is not acting in the best interest of the town. After discussion above motion carried by show of hands. Motion to move presentation with Gerry Mylroie before Open Space Cluster Ordinance by Bob Talon, 2nd by Gerald White, motion carried.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting April 20, 2004 (continued) Page 2
· Presentation with Gerry Mylroie and Corinne Pinkerton (SRPC) to discuss Site & Subdivision Application packets & Planning Board Rules of Procedure. Gerry Mylroie introduced Corinne Pinkerton as his assistant planner with a masters degree in Resource Management and he welcomed new planning board members on the board. Our purpose is to talk about the TRC, review procedure and discuss. The Selectmen in conjunction with the Planning Board created the TRC to include Dept. Heads. We meet, review and comment on Site & Subdivision Applications and render technical advice to help the PB do their job. Applicants believe the town
is becoming more organized to make better decisions and make a better process for developers. Gerry provided new Site Plan Review Application packages & flow chart which incorporates the TRC procedure & recommendations as well as the forms now being used. The TRC has looked at the Site Plan Regulations & PB Rules of Procedure & how the Site Plan Review is to be administered. TRC minutes will be distributed to the PB. If the PB ultimately does not make a decision on an applicant, the applicant may ask the Selectmen to make a decision within 10 days. If the selectmen do not make a decision, the applicant goes to Superior Court.
(1) Site Plan Completeness Review Checklist: TRC recommends the following additional items as amendments to the regulations:
Code 3.01H *CEO Approval/Zoning Permit – CEO needs to find if use is permitted. A Zoning Permit is available & CEO should get this to the TRC/PB.
Code 6.01B12 *Add Building elevations size, exterior materials, colors & appearance.
*Lighting location, size, direction & intensity of illumination of all outdoor lighting
apparatus & signs.
*Signs location, size, graphics, & lighting.
*Streets & driveways: location, size within 200’, site distance, speed limit,
intersections & traffic controls.
*Driveway permits, state and/or local.
Code 4.01E *Digitized Survey on Compact Disk
Code 4.01I *Recommended Information (Restaurant NHHHS-HEP2300 Compliance Certification
(2) Site Plan Compliance Review Checklist: TRC recommends the following amendments to the regulation:
Code 6.03 Utilities *Add Electric, telephone, communication, & cable utilities are located underground,
Unless found unfeasible.
Code 6.06 Physical Arrangements:
*Add Building appearance reflects traditional N.E. architectural style
*Lighting includes fixtures & will not negatively impact adjacent property
*Signs comply with Zoning Ordinance
*Landscaping enhances property & provides screening/buffers between adjacent properties
*Recommended Information
Gerry Mylroie is asking the PB to approve these applications & then approve the affected amended Site Review Regulations.
(3) Subdivision Plan Review Application:
Gerry Mylroie – A major subdivision is 4 or more. A minor subdivision is 3 or less. With a minor subdivision you go through the process once, with a major subdivision you go through the process twice.
Charlie King – attended TRC meeting where the draft for these Site Review & Subdivision Plan Review Applications were reviewed. The proposed structural changes for completeness & compliance are work documents.
Gerry Mylroie – these are regulatory documents and can be adopted at scheduled Public Hearings at a PB meeting.
Charlie King – change in PB Rules of Procedure must be done at 2 consecutive meetings. We cannot adopt these tonight.
Hiram Watson – asked about what a preliminary site plan is (a plan that doesn’t require the applicant to spend a great deal of money.)
Planning Board Workshop Meeting April 20, 2004 (continued) Page 3
Gerry Mylroie – we are looking at the TRC to get the preliminary and completeness checklist done. The applicant comes to the PB starting with 3.1 Code.
Bob Talon – the application is not complete until all items are checked. You are taking away the PB’s opportunity to make comments before it comes for approval. Discussion on timing process and this being an option. I am concerned about PB input on the plan.
Ernie Creveling – at any point the applicant can decide to go to the PB. None of this takes away the PB’s ability.
Charlie King – the applicant has the right to come directly to the PB and not go to the TRC. Discussion of public participation. Charlie asked the board to take their time, review these documents and make recommendations.
Paul Parker – questioned number of copies to be submitted by applicant.
Charlie King – some 11”x17” copies for handouts are fine with larger plans for the file.
Gerry Mylroie – we need the number of copies suggested. Plans need to be given to PB members at a previous meeting in a packet. Paul Parker asked how long TRC meetings are and Gerry Mylroie said 2 – 3 hours. Applications take about 1 hour. Applicants can be billed by the town. Paul Parker questioned workload.
Gerry Mylroie – it is my understanding the PB wants the TRC to review plans before the PB. Discussion on process. Encourage applicants to go to TRC.
Charlie King – discussion on review procedure.
Gerry Mylroie – does the PB want to meet with the applicant before the TRC meets with applicant? Discussion on efficiency of TRC review.
Troy Robidas – doesn’t feel the average applicant could fill out the “Completeness or Compliance Checklists.”
Charlie King – the town CEO, Planner could help the applicant fill this checklist out.
Gerry Mylroie – these are for developers who are doing multi-family, business, etc.
Troy Robidas – there are a lot of people who are just doing one project and that’s it – this would be difficult.
Gerry Mylroie – we can help with that.
Ernie Creveling – what you are asking is understandable. The CEO can go through the process – direct him how to proceed. Suggestion may be made to hire an engineer for parking, drainage, driveway, etc., then fill out the completeness form. The town and TRC will work with the applicant.
Gerry Mylroie – the sooner we can act on this, the more efficient the process will be.
Bob Talon – motion to take time for review and bring this back to the next workshop session May 18, 2004 with recommendations and comments, Hiram Watson 2nd, motion carried.
Gerry Mylroie – SRPC will be hosting a Master Plan Update Workshop (prepare Non-Point Source pollution prevention, prepare a model Cluster Development/Open Space Conservation Ordinance/Regulation on April 29th at 7-9 p.m. at the Frisbie Community Education & Conference Center, 11 Whitehall Rd. in Rochester. He invited board members to participate. Part of the work Gerry is working with AER on is a map. He presented a new zoning map which shows setback overlays (Aquifer Protection, Waterfront Protection Overlay, Watershed Protection overlay, Wellhead & Groundwater Protection overlay. These setbacks have been added to the map. Charlie King thanked Gerry Mylroie for his presentation. Troy Robidas made a motion to recess for 5
minutes at 8:45 p. m., Paul Parker 2nd, motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 9:00 p. m.
· Review proposed “Open Space-Cluster Ordinance” (revised 3/24/04). Paul Parker will present this as chairman of the ZAMPS subcommittee. Changes/suggestions requested by the PB and the two planners were incorporated. The ordinance is good and well written in purpose and objectives. It gives developers flexibility as well as the PB. It will accomplish what the town needs and will be good for the residents of these cluster developments.
Charlie King – legal review needs to be done. After legal review, schedule to come back to the PB.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting April 20, 2004 (continued) Page 4
Paul Parker – I hope we’re near the finish line. With this type of ordinance you can always find something to discuss or change. Will it effectively achieve it’s purpose? After working with it, we may find areas that won’t work & will need to make changes where needed.
Hiram Watson – Page 2 – III. g) add as defined in the Master Plan. after rural character. He asked what are the natural features, scenic views & other special elements of rural character.
Page 3 – define “flexible” road design. Charlie King – discussion on revision of road standards and what flexibility could be allowed.
Page 5 – in block labeled Example: after 2 acres (lot size in zoning district). Discussion.
Troy Robidas – is IX. Baseline Density formula taken from Stratham’s Cluster Ordinance? Charlie – yes. Discussion on formula. Existing conditions plan & delineations discussed as well as numbers.
Charlie King – review the formula yearly for needed changes.
Norm Russell – discussion on i) Roadways – should allow flexibility for incentive to developers. We need to amend Road Standards in the Subdivision Regulations.
Charlie King – doesn’t 3) on page 12 provide flexibility? Discussion on where the proper place is for road standards flexibility. Discussion on petitions to town to accept sub-standards roads.
Norm Russell – at some point we need to amend the standards to make it an incentive (specifically in the Subdivision Road Standards).
Charlie King – have the ZAMPS provide what flexibility should be in the Road Standards. Discussion. Get Clark Hackett’s input.
Norm Russell – shortly after the IGO expires, it is important we have road standards in place as developers will be coming in October 1st.
Charlie King – discussion on revisions – Roadways on page 12.
Troy Robidas – discussion on page 4 VI. Questioned in the 1st sentence leaving Farmington Master Plan or taking it out. Get legal review on this. Discussion.
VIII. Pages 7 & 8 - discussion on a developer who wants to subdivide back land & not getting bonuses. No bonuses are available for a 7-year period.
Charlie King – we wanted to avoid a developer using frontage development vs. backland. Troy - does this hurt Farmington land owners?
Bob Talon – this doesn’t pertain to existing land subdivided. Discussion on providing the applicant of 7-year window for developing land.
Troy Robidas – Page 8 - XIII. a. How do you determine 25%. When would or could it be more? Bob Talon gave an example of wetlands as non-buildable land. The % was determined after looking at several ordinances we used. Discussion on no more than 33% non-buildable land. This 25% could not be waived as a requirement.
Page 8 – XIV. a) 2) – this doesn’t refer to XIII a. This is an additional density bonus. Discussion.
Page 9 – e) 3) – identify view sheds. This has not been done yet. Paul Parker – when this document and Master Plan is done, view sheds will be in place. Discussion on what is an important view shed in the community.
Page 10 – j) discussion on frontage lot bonus. Charlie King – connect with a buffer around the perimeter. Discussion on giving up frontage lot to gain density bonus.
Troy Robidas made a motion at 10:00 p. m. to continue 10 minutes, Gerald White 2nd, motion carried.
Norm Russell – I think we’ve taken care of everyone’s concerns except Hiram’s.
Page 2 – g) add as defined in the Master Plan to end of sentence.
Page 5 – EXAMPLE: (lot size in zoning district).
Page 1 – under Background: 2. This section (remove is) relies on early determination
Page 12 – g) Troy suggested adding (2) cars per dwelling unit.
Page 12 – i) 3) the spirit and intent of this (change section to ordinance) is preserved or enhanced by
Hiram’s questions were answered.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting April 20, 2004 (continued) Page 5
Norman Russell made a motion to forward the proposed Open Space-Cluster Ordinance with recommended changes to legal counsel, Bob Talon 2nd, motion carried. Put on agenda for public hearing after legal review has been completed.
· With no further business to discuss, Paul Parker made a motion to adjourn at 10:15 p. m., Norman Russell 2nd, motion carried.
APPROVED
_____________________________________ _________________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
