PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2004
356 Main Street
Members Present: Charlie King, Troy Robidas, Hiram Watson, Norman Russell, Bob Talon,
Don MacVane, Gerald White requested to be absent at last meeting 6/1/04 Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Fran Osborne
Public Present: Kathy King, Bruce Mayberry (Planner)
· Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:15 p. m. and seated Don MacVane for Gerald White. Minutes of June 1, 2004 were reviewed. Motion was made by Hiram Watson to approve as submitted, Don MacVane 2nd, motion carried. Norm Russell motioned to amend Page 5, line 5 – delete “Norm Russell made motion to amend 2. as above,” Hiram 2nd, motion carried.
· Rules of Procedures for the Farmington Planning Board review.
Norm Russell – Page 3 - 6. General Rules: 2. line 7. delete after Chief along with a Planning Board representative, if available (agreed change at June 1, 2004 meeting).
Page 4 – General Rules: 5. No motion to make this change “recommendation by designated personnel.” Norm Russell made motion to accept this change, Don MacVane 2nd, motion carried.
Page 6. General Rules: 6. Page – Don MacVane made a motion to change “prescribed” to “required,” Norm Russell 2nd, motion failed for lack of majority vote, no change.
Page 4 – General Rules: B. Joint Meetings – Bob Talon made a motion to leave 6. B. Joint Meetings as is – no change, Don MacVane 2nd, motion carried.
Page 4 – Amendment: discussion on holding 2 successive meetings after these amendments, these dates will be July 6 and July 20, 2004. No other changes. Discussion on amendment date – leave June 15, 2004 as is.
Motion by Don MacVane to accept changes as complete, Paul Parker 2nd, motion carried.
· CIP update regarding appointments to the subcommittee. Troy Robidas and Hiram Watson have been appointed to the subcommittee. Motion by Hiram to add Gibson Hearn as a member of the CIP subcommittee, Troy Robidas 2nd, discussion with Paul Parker on Gibson Hearn’s attendance (he attended 6 of 8 meetings and offered input), motion carried.
Charlie King said he will draft a letter to the School and Budget Committees requesting their participation.
· Town land to be considered for public auction sale. Charlie King said there are 11 parcels – 2 are abutting and 2 in the same development (Lancelot Shores). Discussion on lots and reasons why they shouldn’t be put up for auction. Discussion on lots as follows:
Tax Map R19, Lot 14 – lot is used as a bus parking area. Leave as is.
Tax Map U5, Lot 27 – discussion. May be interest by the Recreation Dept. as a picnic or recreation area. This lot might have value to the town. Get input from Recreation Dept. to see if they are interested in this lot. Norm Russell – lot is a low-lying area presently serving as a detention area. There is some upland area there which could be used. It also could be used as a basketball court or possible ice skating area. Paul Parker – if the Recreation Dept. is interested, make recommendation not to sell.
Don MacVane made a motion to continue this portion of meeting until after speaker Bruce Mayberry gives his presentation, Paul Parker 2nd, motion carried.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting June 15, 2004 (continued) Page 2
· Bruce Mayberry, Planning Consultant from Yarmouth, Maine, educational presentation on “Impact Fees.” Chairman Charlie King introduced all board members to Bruce Mayberry from Maine. Discussion on power to be able to put impact fees in place and that it is growing because the courts are letting towns know what they need to do to develop impact fees. It takes growth pressure to start the push for impact fees. About 60 communities have some sort of impact fees. RSA 674:21 Innovative Land Use Controls. V. gives an overview of impact fees imposed upon development, including subdivision, building construction or other
land use change, in order to help meet the needs occasioned by that development for the construction or improvement of capital facilities owned or operated by the municipality, including and limited to water treatment and distribution water, drainage and flood control facilities; public road systems and rights-of-way; municipal office facilities; public school facilities; the municipality’s proportional share of capital facilities of a cooperative or regional school district of which the municipality is a member; public safety facilities; solid waste collection, transfer, recycling, processing and disposal facilities; public library facilities; and public recreational facilities not including public open space.
Bruce Mayberry presented an outline “Creating An Impact Fee System” (see attached) which he went over with board members. Discussion on the Impact Fee Ordinance being the legal authority to assess impact fees and the process needed to come up with a fee schedule. Capital accounts must be categorized – they can be multiple but must be used for the designated purpose. Proportionality is a key. Discussion on collecting for future development to recover what is spent at the beginning, for example, sewer fees and updating based on growth and demand. Refunds have to be used within 6 years (use Tax Map and Lot # if a refund is necessary).
Troy Robidas asked if the town would have to pay interest on a refund. Bruce Mayberry – yes, it if is an interest bearing account that was used. Discussion on refunding fee and to whom. The person is designated in terms of the ordinance, usually the owner of record. The ordinance needs to be specific. Discussion on what is new development – new homes, commercial, additions. School impact fees are sometimes based on number of bedrooms.
Charlie King – there is no “Impact Fee Ordinance” now. Discussion on developing a “standard,” unit cost per pupil. Bruce Mayberry - discussion on credits for property taxes paid, present value credit, court decisions have zeroed in on this (double dipping.) Come up with a proportionate formula – some unit number to apply to new development for the developer as well as the town. There are cases where an impact fee might not be feasible. There are site specifics – an intersection causing a large amount of traffic – preserve authority to do that. Evaluate capital needs – existing needs – future needs – evaluate capital projects. The CIP is a prerequisite as a document for putting Impact Fees in place. Units of
measurement for calculating are: schools, water & sewer, public safety (judgment call), parks & recreation, roads. Discussion on parks & recreation – what does the town demand? Choose a standard based on population. Discussion on road systems – based on per trip basis and generation of traffic.
Impact Fee Ordinance – cite authority of RSA, a dollar amount, waivers (consider criteria case by case for fees).
Paul Parker – discussion of an appeal to be made to the ZBA under and RSA - Innovative Land Use Rules – appeal to the Court. Discussion on conditional use permit by the Planning Board. If the CEO has authority, it could be appealed to the ZBA. Bruce Mayberry – Brentwood used the handbook for developing fees. Discussion on court cases and appeals regarding impact fees. Derry was also discussed – fee on road improvement. There is a senate bill to bring back off-site development impact fees. This bill would clarify this issue (scheduled for 6/1/05).
Planning Board Workshop Meeting June 15, 2004 (continued) Page 3
Discussion on having a Growth Management Ordinance/Impact Fee Ordinance in place simultaneously (Hudson – Monahan case and Litchfield case – fee amount). Development investment issue discussed, if it is already an approved development, the 4-year rule may apply. Old lots of record need to go by current regulations. RSA 674:39 discussed. Current legislation will change a portion of this RSA.
Charlie King – authority has been given to the Planning Board to assess impact fees. Bruce Mayberry - discussion on lots being grandfathered if approved and recorded at registry of deeds.
Charlie King – an impact fee doesn’t come into play until you have a dollar amount or fee schedule in place. Existing lots of record approved within the 4-year adoption might apply, there’s the investing issue.
Norm Russell – discussion on impact fees on facilities that have built-in growth. Hookup fees to water and sewer discussed and cost of system capacity. Discussion on school and future enrollment, expansion -impact fee would apply, and any CIP expenses on facilities. Updates on sewer treatment plant and water were discussed. Fire Dept. needs for the future and anticipated growth was discussed. Bruce suggested using an asterisk (*) for “growth related” items needed for upgrades in the CIP. Discussion on upgrades to enhance capacity and not being related to growth. Come up with unit cost per housing unit to defray cost of growth related capacity. Roads – needs are sometimes upgrades for subdivisions, anticipation for future needs. Discussion on a
connector road. Establish a proportionate fee (quarter off a section of the town that serves a certain group of homes), how far away is direct? Generate formulas. Discussion on where developments may be and gearing toward this area for improvement distribution (need travel paths.) Impacts on state highways are beyond the municipality’s jurisdiction. Impact fees would not apply to resurfacing roads. Improving shoulders, base line condition, widening, removing rocks, new sub base, etc. are capital improvement areas. Norm – impact fee doesn’t limit the liability for a community geared to growth management. Bruce – a Growth Management Ordinance delays building permits. The impact fee is to compensate for impact the development creates. The developer is willing if it enhances the facilities.
Paul Parker – discussion on other planners and their ideas on defraying costs of growth by assessing impact fees. Bruce Mayberry – it is a tool which has to be done proportionately. The town may be pushed to refund fees if they don’t make capital improvements within the 6-year time frame. Discussion on administrative function of tracking impact fees. Forms would be used to keep track of accounts separately. The market has a way of keeping up with cost of growth. Have fees in place for when growth does take place. Discussion on discounting fees and growth.
Bruce Mayberry – suggested talking to other towns and what they are doing. Discussion on growth costs and operating costs.
Paul Parker – what communities work better? Bruce – larger communities with 5 to 10,000 people. There is a need for more full-time staff threshold. A community this size would need a full-time Fire Dept. Discussion on growth curve – development cost on land and availability of land to develop.
Charlie King – asked about Rochester and what towns in our area are doing. Bruce Mayberry said Barrington and Epping are working on impact fees. Dover did only School impact fees. If nothing on fees are in place, you cannot assess impact fees. A notice is needed.
Charlie King – off site improvements and enactment. Bruce - based on the law at present, would towns need an enactment ordinance for upgrade to intersections or sidewalks?
Bruce – these fees would have to be governed by an enactment of an impact fee schedule. Towns can negotiate for improvements. Enactment is under premature and scattered
Planning Board Workshop Meeting June 15, 2004 (continued) Page 4
development in the Subdivision Regs. Discussion on the 6-year period for funds being utilized. Does that mean they need to be expended or can dollars be earmarked for a specific purpose?
Bruce – the statute says the municipal share must be done in 6 years. The act of appropriation for a specific purpose to be budgeted may be the only way to extend beyond the 6-year window. Some may require 10 years or stages of expenses being spent on capital outlay costs. If you are making progress toward a 10-year goal, I don’t think it would be a problem. Discussion on schools and providing for capacity for additional kids. You can’t collect more than a proportionate fair share, formula determinations are needed. There has to be an object for impact fees to be expended on within the 6-year plan. Recreation is spotty, we don’t know what the growth is going to be, so its difficult to be exact. Stay with the unit cost
approach. There are always capital improvements – set aside to be proportionate as growth occurs through expansions. Bruce suggested getting in touch with area towns to see what they have for impact fees. Discussion on the property tax system being equitable, impact fees being on demand, per capita expenses with impact fee based on unit consumption.
Charlie – questioned impact fees on businesses. Bruce said you can based on traffic impact fees, public safety issues, etc. Libraries and schools were also discussed, being fair and not disproportionate.
Troy Robidas made a motion to recess for 5 minutes, Paul Parker 2nd at 9:10 p.m., motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
· Town land to be considered for public auction sale (continuation).
Tax Map U1, Lot 10 & 10-1. Norm Russell – part of this land is in the well radius of the town well. Soils on this property are a natural sand/gravel soil. There may not be an easement to this property. The town may want to maintain this property or it could be used for gravel, increase the town well radius, or parking for Fernald Park, etc. Lots stop at Lot 11. It could also be a walking path to Fernald Park, there are planning options. Norm Russell made a motion not to sell U1, Lot 10 & 10-1, reasons being sand/gravel deposits, protection of the well radius and a possible town walkway to Fernald Park, Don MacVane 2nd, discussion on easement to lots, motion carried.
Tax Map R6, Lots 213 & 217, Lancelot Shores – there should never be an allowance for subdivision of parcels this small. Discussion on lots being directly behind Lancelot Shores Association’s large leach field. Bob Talon – I don’t see any value to these properties. Don MacVane – approach Lancelot Shores Association or abutters and offer lots at a reduced price, put restrictions so it couldn’t just be resold for building purposes. Discussion on auction terms. Paul Parker – is it profitable for the town to maintain? Is there any value to the town? Bob Talon made a motion to put these lots up for auction as there is no value to the town, Don MacVane 2nd, discussion on lots being buildable, lots are
valuable to sell, Norm Russell opposed, motion carried.
Tax Map R17, Lot 26 Tall Pine Rd. This is a lot of record. There is a possibility the lot may not be buildable. The whole lot is very wet resulting from a high water table. Norm Russell made a motion to put this lot up for auction with a notation – “it is questionable if lot is buildable,” Don MacVane 2nd, motion carried.
Tax Map R19, Lot 14 – the town water line may run through this property. Pike Industries may use this lot for drainage on road work being done near this location. Norm Russell made a motion to consult the Water Dept. as to their interests on this lot, Don MacVane 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Planning Board Workshop Meeting June 15, 2004 (continued) Page 5
Tax Map R23, Lot 18 – 3-acre parcel, motion by Bob Talon to put this lot up for auction, Don MacVane 2nd, motion carried.
Tax Map R34, Lot 17, 22.02 acres. Norm Russell – good location for residential development, close to town, good soils. Discussion on parcel. No town water and sewer on the property. Charlie – this could be subdivided into 15 lots. Motion by Norm Russell to put this parcel up for auction, Don MacVane 2nd, motion carried.
Tax Map R42, Lot 4, J.F. Scruton Rd. – Hiram Watson – this parcel is mostly wetland and a swampy area with limited uplands. There are almost 11 acres and it is a thin piece of land.
There is a house out there on that road. Don MacVane made a motion to put this lot up for auction, Hiram Watson 2nd, motion carried.
· Open Space Cluster Ordinance – Charlie gave copies of Attorney Laura Spector’s response to the Open Space Cluster Ordinance sent to her for review. Charlie asked board members to review for comment and schedule for the July 6, 2004 Planning Board meeting.
· Appointment Procedure for Town Boards and Committees – discussion on page 3 next to last paragraph on page (bold print). Norm Russell made a motion to add - The Board of Selectmen will consider the appointment starting with the most senior board member/s, Paul Parker 2nd, motion carried. Motion was made by Paul Parker to present to the Selectmen as amended, Troy Robidas 2nd, motion carried.
· With no further business to discuss, Bob Talon made a motion to adjourn at 10:30 p.m., Hiram Watson 2nd, motion carried.
APPROVED
___________________________________ ______________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
| 
