PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004
356 Main Street
Members Present: Charlie King, Norman Russell, Hiram Watson, Troy Robidas, Bob Talon, Gerald White,
(Don MacVane called in to be absent)
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Ernie Creveling (Town Administrator), Fran Osborne
Public Present: Brad Anderson (Conservation Commission, ZAMPS, Economic Dev. Commission, Peter
Cicolini (Brookside Property Services Inc.), John Huckins
· Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:06 p. m. Those present are listed above. The minutes of May 4, 2004 were reviewed. Norm Russell asked minutes to be amended on page 5 to read:
Norm made a motion to have CEO review and make recommendations. Bob Talon – page 3, 18th line from bottom to read: “retired” professional.
Norm made a motion to accept the minutes as amended above, Gerald White 2nd, Troy abstained, motion carried.
· Site and Subdivision Review Application process. Charlie King – concerned about delaying to later after public hearing or having some discussion on what was presented. Norm Russell mentioned these documents were given to Planner, Mike Garrepy to review. We may not be ready at this time. Paul Parker shares Norm’s comment. Charlie King spoke with Mike Garrepy and Site Review Procedure will be ready for review next meeting.
Paul Parker – asked comments on subdivision applications from planning board perspective. Bob Talon likes 99% of the work submitted. We need to wrap as much together as possible.
Paul Parker – motion to delay discussion until we look at Mike Garrepy’s review – schedule for June 15, 2004 workshop meeting, Norm Russell 2nd, motion carried.
Gerry White – I will only be here the June 1st meeting, not the 15th. Discussion.
· Planning Board Procedures – Norm Russell made a motion to continue this after the public hearing, Gerald White 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
· New Business: Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance. Discussion on meeting scheduled for public hearing tomorrow night May 19, 2004 at 7:30 p. m. All members indicated they would be there.
· Brad Anderson, Community Preservation Guild: at the request of the Planning Board the Community Preservation Guild did a presentation on a design manual. Copies of Brad’s letter were given to board members. Discussion. The design manual is a catalog of existing features in town (business, roads, etc.) We spell out principals of interest in buildings. The idea is to provide benefit to elderly, developers, Planning Board, TRC and abutters, etc. This is a voluntary thing (4 Planning Board members have seen the presentation.) Brad explained 64% of funding was received for the project including a $5,000 in
a grant and $3,200 from the Community Preservation Guild. We are about $5,000 short. Chairman King – Brad is here to ask assistance to recommend the Selectmen fund the $5,000 for the project. Brad – we are in a bind and can’t complete work to be done without the $5,000 in needed funding to finish the project. Discussion.
Charlie King – we would like to recommend or whatever out of our budget.
Troy Robidas – they are looking to the Planning Board for the funds because it wasn’t available from the commlunity. We have other planning costs. I am in support of going forward with it.
Paul Parker – discussion on zoning areas covered by the presentation. It’s not just about buildings. It includes parking, landscaping and roads, etc. “The big box” moves into town – big stores and what the town can do is to have a strong design standard to fit what the town intends.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting May 18, 2004 (continued) Page 2
Brad – this is voluntary but the Planning Board should have this tie into Town regulations. Make some things required and available to developers.
Paul Parker – it is a tool for the board to use.
Norm Russell – agrees with Paul Parker on the Design Manual, density bonuses, etc. It gives developers something to go by and is voluntary at this time. It sounds like the Planning Board wanted to endorse a letter to the Selectmen to fund that effort. What can we do?
Charlie – it was not considered by the Selectmen the last budget. (1) We the PB can not recommend it to the Board of Selectmen; (2) we can recommend the Selectmen fund it fully; (3) we can fund it to an extent ourselves & ask the selectmen to fund the balance out of the general fund, or (4) we can fund it totally. My preference because it is a Planning Board tool is that we could fund 50% of that and ask the selectmen to consider the 50% balance. It’s up to Planning Board members.
Hiram asked Paul Parker how he felt about it as a selectman.
Paul Parker – I think it’s a good base and there’s a good reason & purpose for it and it’s almost necessary if this town wants to maintain its rural New England character. A design standard is necessary.
Hiram Watson – re-iterated it was voluntary and asked Brad what kind of points he was talking about. Brad – give developers a bonus for incorporating “x” number of features from the design manual on a point system. Hiram – like the Cluster Subdivision Ordinance. Brad – yes. Discussion.
Paul Parker – if it’s a viable project, have the Planning Board write a letter to the Board of Selectmen to come to some kind of term on it. Discussion on funding options.
Brad – you could fund all of it and then request reimbursement from the Board of Selectmen.
Troy Robidas – how long would this take? Ernie Creveling – if you feel it’s important enough to do, you would request it. I don’t know whose Town budget it would come from. You’re talking $2,500, but we don’t know what will happen during the course of the year with budgets. Look at it at the end of the year (reimbursement or not – you’ll see better where your budget is.)
Hiram Watson made a motion to fund the Design Manual request 100% ($5,000), but request the Board of Selectmen reimburse the Planning Board in full based on year-end figures, or at least half ($2,500), discussion, Norm 2nd, motion carried.
Troy asked if we were going to get into design regulation, if so, then it’s a good idea, otherwise it’s not a good idea. Bob Talon – thinks it’s good also.
Charlie King – this would come under Site Review Regulations review.
Brad Anderson – this will be in Microsoft Word format so it can be worked on later for whatever changes you wish to make. The Planning Board can own this thing (Design Manual) and you can modify and republish it. Discussion of Planning Board budget to be discussed in depth later. This represents less than 10% of our $57,000 budget. The $57,000 does not include the $85,000 put on the town warrant. That was an additional amount.
Ernie Creveling – this is similar to the Main St. Program. You have the dollars in the planning budget. It is a viable product. At this point you do have money within the PB budget.
· New Business: Strafford Regional Planning Commission “Proposed Zoning Map.” Norm Russell made a motion to move this to after the public hearing, Bob Talon 2nd, motion carried.
Gerald White made a motion to recess at 7:50 p. m. for 5 minutes, Norm Russell 2nd, motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 8:00 p. m.
· Site Review Application by Peter Cicolini (Brookside Properties Services, Inc.) Tax Map R20, Lot 19, NH Rte.11, continuation. Peter Cicolini is presenting documents for conditional approval. A letter from Fire Chief Ed Robinson was read & part of the file (attached), Ed also recommended approval. Response from the manufacturer was received and given to Ed Robinson. He revised his application as requested by the Planning Board and list of changes to the site plan. Peter prepared a layout of chemicals to be stored and spray area was also provided to Ed Robinson. Ed’s suggestion was to have two hard-wired smoke
detectors. Peter – I am agreeable to that.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting May 18, 2004 (continued) Page 3
Hiram – there is a septic system there now and Peter said it was put in when the building was done. Safety guide sheets (Peter believes there are 4 chemicals & 2 components) were provided. Peter said he called from Ed Robinson’s office & has a clean set of the chemical recommendations list and CD Rom.
Norm Russell – reviewed PB minutes. Suggestion of submitting a waiver of engineered plan on changes from the original 1987 plan. The 1987 plan is not a reflection of existing conditions at the site. Discussion on issues from last meeting. Ed Robinson letter (attached) stating the Fire Dept. could provide fire & hazardous material released from the facility. Charlie – discussion on layout showing where chemicals would be stored & spray booth for bedliner portion.
Norm Russell - Existing conditions on just driving by are as follows:
*Tenant parking areas should be designated – they seem to park in all areas and parking areas seem to
be used for other stuff right now
*There are 2 access ways with paved shoulders on the property with cars parked everywhere on different
days
*The 1987 plan does not reflect the lean-to attached to Rochester end of the building
*Building has substantially changed (main building enlarged)
*Natural buffer shows only 3 shrubs – not what was depicted in plans
*There is a van parked on lot off and on where shrubbery should be & a pickup parked “for sale” which
may be too close to the river
*No defined parking
*Questions on locations of driveways to existing homes. There are 2 access driveways – 2nd access leads to
home (rented properties).
*There seems to be a temporary storage facility (he thinks), with vehicles parked also
*Questioned manufacture of wood products where tenant parking is around area of telephone pole not
documented on plans
*Plan is not consistent with parking plan or what is actually existing
*There’s also a boat and snowmobile trailer parked there?
Norm Russell - it may not be in the town’s best interest to let this continue. Designate parking areas. Discussion on summarizing issues
Charlie King – single access vs. multiple access is an issue.
Peter Cicolini – discussion on paved entrance being done by the state when N.H. Rte. 11 is redone. Parking for the 3 rental residences (brown house on right toward New Durham and 2 toward Rochester discussion.)
Charlie King – are you going to address parking?
Peter Cicolini – discussion on ample room for parking for building being worked on and the others. The entrance on the right will be utilized for rental properties. Discussion.
Charlie King – the lean to on the Rochester end of the metal building is used for storage – approximately 8’ x 30’ size. It has a metal roof attached to the building. He suggested Peter add all these changes to the plan.
Norm questioned vehicles again.
Peter Cicolini said his intent is to have vehicles and the boat behind the shrubs. The pickup will be gone. Discussion on parking for middle house. The “for sale” pickup will be removed. I defined the plan from the shrubs over. Beyond the shrubs there will be nothing parked. I’ve cleaned up a lot from the property, vehicles have been addressed with tenants who own them.
Norm – I’d like to see designated parking areas as they will be and the plan reflect where parking is to occur. Add house to the right. Peter Cicolini – I didn’t really address residences as I came in for change of use on metal building only.
Charlie – discussion of what was originally approved and what is being stored in lean-to, compliance with 1987 plan and existing parking spaces.
Bob Talon – previous use of building and change of use discussion. He’s just trying to put a use in the
existing building. Define what is being stored in lean-to. Another driveway is dictated by the State DOT.
Tenant parking is not part of requested approval, you don’t need approval for that – that’s beyond the board’s jurisdiction. Residences should not be part of the approval. Submit a plan showing existing
Planning Board Workshop Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 4
conditions. A driveway permit is a DOT issue. You should note lean to on the list and the plan for the record.
Charlie King – do you know if there was another access off Rte. 11 granted by DOT? Peter – doesn’t know as he bought it as is.
Bob Talon – the state wouldn’t put in an apron if they didn’t approve it.
Troy Robidas –wasn’t here for last meeting, but is surprised the TRC let this go through.
Charlie King – he has a request for waiver to an engineered plan being submitted because there has been no substantial change in the building. Originally the TRC recommended we mark up the existing plan. Maybe that wasn’t a good idea. Discussion.
Ernie Creveling – any applicant has a right to ask for a waiver.
Peter Cicolini – we are not changing anything on the outside of the building. The change of use needed approval which I went to the TRC for to see what I needed to do. I’ve substantially improved the property. I will make necessary changes to the parking. Discussion on repair and bedliner business. There will not be cars/trucks left over long periods of time, customers will be there just long enough to have work completed. Parking will be for employees and customer parking. Peter was asked to define curb to protect the septic system from parking in that area.
Norm – discussion of residential pre-existing three buildings. There is a woodworking business. The tenant has said he will come to the town if he needs a permit of some sort. Peter Cicolini - I don’t have an issue as he was there when I bought the property. He does this business on the side. Norm - off and on this site has had vehicles posted for sale. It is not against the Zoning Ordinance to have one vehicle for sale. If you are going to continue this use I would like to know where you will do this on the property.
Peter – I will adhere to what the town wants. The homes are residential rented buildings, not commercial buildings. Discussion.
Charlie King – have the CEO decide whether this is allowed. Multiple vehicles for sale is not allowed.
Peter Cicolini – my intent is to leave residences.
Charlie King – I was hoping for better delineation of chemicals for the Fire Dept. Delineate in s. f. on the plan. Where will the fire extinguishers be? Show area s. f. and requested locations of chemicals, fire extinguishers, etc. Give an updated plan to the Fire Dept. Have semi-annual fire inspections of the residences. Make this a contingency of approval and have the inspection done right away.
Charlie King – discussion on Part A activator and “speedy dry” vs. a diluted process. If diluted, where will it go? We would like Part A “Speedy Dry” only. Prohibit diluted Part B. Discussion. The concern is for groundwater pollution.
Peter Cicolini – I’ll define “Speedy Dry” as the only method to use.
Charlie King – 2nd access by DOT was rightly given. This should not be an issue for the board. Peter said the lean to (8’x30’) is used for a lawnmower, wheelbarrow and maintenance items for the rental buildings).
Norm – no vehicles allowed on the property in disrepair.
Peter Cicolini – the home being renovated will have no unregistered vehicles, that’s part of my rental agreement. This will be part of the contingent approval.
Norm – detailing on parking – discussion. Delineate parking for all tenants and maintain some green area. Peter – the middle and right houses park in front of the brown house. Discussion on no vehicles to the left of the shrubs.
Paul Parker – have CEO review sale of wood products.
Peter – I will continue to make the property look better.
John Huckins (public) – discussion on conditional approval of site plan and the site plan being recorded.
Bob Talon – Site Plans do not get recorded.
Charlie King – request for waiver on having a stamped engineered site plan.
Troy Robidas – I would not support a waiver. Discussion on there being other plans. Fran said there were other plans in the file on this property.
Peter – I walked the site with the TRC. There was an approved septic design. If you visit the site it is close to what you see on the plan.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 5
Charlie – TRC review is included.
Norm – I don’t feel it shows current conditions. The building is more than double in size. Sale of wood products is not designated. You need to show current existing conditions. Discussion.
Bob Talon – when we first looked at this, the change of use was to get back to using the building. Discussion. There’s no rule you can’t display items for sale on the property. He would show the entrance not shown and the lean to on the back of the building.
Bob Talon made a motion to accept the waiver of an updated Site Plan, Hiram Watson 2nd, vote 4 for, 2 against, motion carried. Discussion.
Paul Parker made a motion to accept the plan as complete, Norm Russell 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Discussion on conditions.
Norm Russell – accept on conditions. Specify where sign will be – Peter Cicolini – this was addressed on #5 on my list.
Paul Parker – additional driveway – is it sufficiently off the right-of-way? Peter – yes, since front of one of residences was removed which allows for more space.
Norm Russell – I would make a motion to accept this application based on 6 conditions/additions as follows (read by Charlie King), Bob Talon 2nd, no discussion, Paul Parker opposed, motion carried.
(1) No vehicles in disrepair
(2) 2nd additional lean to Rochester side – state size and use – add to list
(3) Delineate all parking spaces for residences
(4) More detail of chemical storage and fire extinguisher(s) located on the plan
(5) Semi-annual fire inspections until Fire Dept. recommends otherwise
(6) Dilution of “Part A” – not allowed for cleanup – only absorbent “Speedy Dry” material.
Peter Cicolini will get changes to Fran.
· Planning Board Expenditures 2004 (Ernie Creveling). (See attached budget report.) Discussion on Planning Board budget figures from the accounting department – Page 1 Planning & Zoning current budgeted figure $62,670.00 (includes planning consulting $52,650.00 - $6,000 ZAMPS $12,500 Administration support; $28,000.00 Planning-SRPC (50% billable to developers); $3,650 Education, Presentations & Training; $2,500 CIP printing, meetings, administrative support. SRPC $4,920.00 Dues, Print/Advertising $1,600.00 Legal Public hearings, Postage $3,000.00 Planning & Codes/Master Plan update and Enforcement Funds $500.00 court enforcement of code
violations. Discussion on expenses by vendor There is $40,000 left out of total available planning board funds. Planning by vendor was discussed and that this is in a different budget. There is $85,000 in a different budget for Master Plan work by Applied Economic Research (AER). Charlie – discussion of $26,000 budgeted last year and $25,700 expensed most of which was Mike Garrepy, but reimbursements by applicants to come before the board were received. Planner Gerry Mylroie from Strafford Regional Planning Commission took over planner review for TRC (with Dept. Heads) as a part-time consultant. We’re up to $57,000 with expenses in that area. Based on growth the town is experiencing, do we want to continue or do we want to change those services? We will need more planning services. If we continue with SRPC this $57,000 could go up considerably. It is possible we could hire a planner after this
budget year. It is our budget and I don’t think we’ve reviewed it appropriately.
Norm Russell – when did we start spending money on this budget? Ernie Creveling – January 1, 2004. Last year Mike Garrepy was there most of the year for PB public hearings, ZAMPS and rewrite of some regulations/ordinances, etc. The selectmen felt someone was needed here during the day. Discussion on money spent to date. Postage fees and enforcement were discussed. E. Creveling – since SRPC has been on board, we have not been billing clients. This board needs to decide what is reasonable. Originally it was to bill at 50% to applicants. If we had a full time planner we might be able to use him on other issues.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting May 18, 2004 (continued) Page 6
Charlie – discussion on CEO support. This would allow him to bring to the PB expertise we don’t have (legal, procedures, etc.). When we get large subdivision requests, we will need some expertise. We are ordinary lay people and need that guidance. Does the PB feel we should recommend this to the selectmen?
Discussion on putting the (IGO) Interim Growth Ordinance in place.
Paul Parker – if you have a planner working for the town he is loyal to the town.
Troy Robidas – seek out applicants for this position.
E. Creveling – to be able to hire someone this year you would need to suspend what is going on now. Benefits to this person is an issue. For that to be possible you would have to suspend further Master Plan and Planning Consulting. There is $39,996.33 remaining in this year’s budget.
Norm Russell – we have projects with Mike Garrepy outstanding at this point.
E. Creveling approximately $55,000 is needed, maybe $48,000 for the remainder of the year after expenditures. You need to be careful what you are talking about.
Bob Talon – discussion on hiring someone with civil background.
Norm Russell – engineering review can be sent out to consultants and billed to applicants before the board. Look for someone with experience and qualifications. Discussion on where to obtain applicants for interview process.
Charlie King – discussion on peer engineering review for planning tasks being accomplished, someone committed to the community in areas we are not able to do ourselves. Discussion on timely services. Long term goal is to get a planner and fill in gaps with the IGO. Issues may arise. If we had the CEO to recommend changes, this would be helpful.
Hiram Watson – discussion on finalizing the Master Plan for 2005.
E. Creveling – the community has shown a lot of support for this. There is a lot of growth pressure. We need a safety valve when the IGO is lifted. We need someone on staff exclusively to deal with issues regarding planning. Discussion on line items dollar amounts on budget report.
Hiram – who would make up job description? E. Creveling – I could make up one in my office and run it by the PB.
Troy Robidas made a motion to make recommendation to the Selectmen to seek and find a full-time planning position person, Hiram 2nd, motion carried. Charlie King will present a letter to the Board of Selectmen at their next meeting. Discussion.
Norm Russell – should the board of selectmen identify where they want strengths so the planner doesn’t have to dedicate 100% of his time to planning? Planner could assist the CEO in the Code Office. Identify areas where needed.
E. Creveling – in terms of Codes Office, there are a lot of things that come up day by day (health inspections, junkyard problems, complaints, etc.). A Dept. Head should be overseeing this. Decide what to do to maintain what is appropriate.
Charlie King – minimize expenses until a planner may be hired. E. Creveling – discussion on what to do with SRPC? We would have to restrict TRC meetings to conserve these funds. That would address that concern.
Norm Russell – we want to keep Mike Gararepy. E. Creveling – I’d like to run this by the Board of Selectmen at Monday night meeting. June 5 – 20th I will be on vacation. Is there anybody on the PB that could meet with the TRC while I am gone? In the interim, Dept. Heads could come in on applications that may come in and review plans and make comments on what is needed before the applicant spends a lot of money.
Paul Parker – discussion on time process. Have Gerry Mylroie (TRC) come Thursday. Starting next week I will make provisions for something different.
E. Creveling – if the Board of Selectmen agree to do this, we’ll put an ad in the paper. It may take 6 weeks to 6 months to find someone depending on availability of someone for planning. We have places to advertise.
Charlie King – do a generic job description. Come before the board for interview with applicant, board of selectmen, E. Creveling. A selectmen’s representative could be present.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting May 18, 2004 (continued) Page 7
Norman Russell made a motion to have a letter drafted to the Board of Selectmen for a full-time planner, amend to have E. Creveling detail expenses of Strafford Regional Commission planner and limit expenses until this position is filled, Hiram Watson 2nd, motion carried.
Charlie King will draft the letter to the Selectmen. E. Creveling will schedule for Board of Selectmen meeting. Discussion. Have Dept. Heads make recommendation to the PB on earth removal permit from Pike Industries.
Hiram Watson – CIP needs to be looked at now. Discussion. At the June 1st PB meeting activate the CIP Subcommittee and see if new members are needed. Hiram and Troy will serve from the PB. Continue review of appointment procedures.
Hiram Watson made a motion to review appointment procedures to the boards, Troy Robidas 2nd, motion carried.
· Review of Planning Board Procedures. Norman Russell and Paul Parker 2nd to continue this to the June 1st Planning Board meeting. Paul Parker & E. Creveling - discussion on what kind of help is needed while Ernie is on vacation.
· With no further business to discuss, Norman Russell made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 p. m., Troy Robidas 2nd, vote unanimous, motion carried.
APPROVED
____________________________________ _______________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
