PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Norm Russell, Hiram Watson, Troy Robidas, Bob Talon
Absent: Gerald White, Don MacVane – (called in absent)
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker – Late (at the polls)
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Tony Alcorn (Newdam), Richard Maloon, Sue Ducharme (Conservation Comm),
Randy Orvis (Newdam), Dick Lawrence, Harold Butt, John Doyle, Kerry King,
Bruce Cartwright (Newdam), John Huckins, David Mott (Crown Point Survey & Engineering), John Leon, Val Somers, Jay Somers, Mike Sievert, Sylvia Howard
· Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:11p. m.
OLD BUSINESS:
· Minutes of 10/05/04, 10/13/04 and 10/19/04 were reviewed. Bob Talon made a motion to approve the 10/05/04 minutes as written, Norm Russell 2nd the motion with changes to be made on page 2 as follows; Line 22 – Proposed cluster “IF” this would, Line 23 – Yes you would “LOSE” the road, Line 27 – Say yes “AS” well as, 6th line from bottom – Norm Russell – it appears “PROVISIONS” are for access. Chairman asks do we have any further proposed changes to the discussion, No other changes, all in favor of making proposed changes, all in
favor of approval of minutes as amended, motion passes. Troy Robidas must abstain, absent from previous meeting. Next we have Planning Board minutes of 10/13/04; does anyone have motion on those minutes? Norm Russell motions to approve as is, Chairman asks for 2nd, I 2nd the motion by Troy Robidas. Do we have any discussion? No discussion, all in favor of approving as is, all approve, motion carried. Now we have Planning Board minutes of 10/19/04; does anyone have motion on those minutes? Motion to approve minutes as written Bob Talon, do we have 2nd motion; yes Troy Robidas, any discussion? Yes, Norm Russell on the site review regulations on sewage disposal comments (highlighting old versus new – what has been changed and what has been replaced). There is a need of consistency showing exactly what is added and subtracted in the previous minutes. Chairman King
comments that it would be better to continue this discussion at the next workshop meeting (Tuesday, November 16, 2004). Norm Russell made motion to remove “water and sewer” after approvals by the boards review at that time. Norm Russell is having a hard time understanding items that were removed and added. It was suggested using strikes throughs’ in the future to circumvent these misunderstandings and for clarity purposes. Chairman King any other discussions regarding these minutes? All those in favor of amendments by Norm Russell, Bob Talon 2nd to approve the minutes as amended, motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS:
-
· Preliminary Conceptual Plan Discussion (new information request) Newdam, Inc. (Tax Maps R49, Lots 48, & 58 & R60, Lot 18 Bay Road.
Randy Orvis presenting 1st item on the agenda. We were here last month before the board at which time they deemed that more information was required to proceed which has precipitated our return this evening. Mr. Orvis handed each board member copies of colored sheets that outlines the wetlands and areas that are over 25% slope. Also included are legends showing total track area of 258.7 AC – 3 parcels involved for 18.6 AC of which 2 are wetlands and 19.4 AC class 3 wetlands for a total of 38 AC of wetlands. Each lot will be 1 AC lots. There are 11 AC of slopes over 25%. Randy Orvis provided much more mathematical calculations of parcels that are available and build able coming up with 194 lots. Paul Esswein interjects after his calculations there
are 188 buildable lots. Newdam is not proposing any where near that many lots. In the conceptual copies of the 1st phase we are proposing a 14-lot subdivision (blue print posted on wall for viewing). Last comment Mr. Orvis is now looking for direction to proceed. Chairman King inquires about the maximum density bonus calculated before the set-aside, which Paul Esswein indicates that it is based on the total units they can achieve. Chairman King questions the 40% set aside before density, Paul Esswein to check into further. Chairman King asks any further questions? Discussions turned over to Tony Alcorn on behalf of Newdam, Inc. Tony re-iterated previous discussions with Randy Orvis and Paul Esswein and indicated that they are still reviewing the ordinance to understand the special permit issuance and when that might apply if at all. Tony and his partners are looking to the board for guidance on further points that they will need to
address. Tony elaborates on the phasing of the lots to be Phase I – 14 lots; with the remainder of the cluster to be Phase II comprised of 32 lots, Phase III and IV (Spring Street) to be 8 lots connected with a short road and cul-de-sac to a center cluster of most attractive 15 lots. The last phase of 47 lots (Spring Street and Ctr. Cluster) could be Phase V and VI. Tony indicated the time frame projected for each phase would be about 6 months, however he has not consulted with his partners and feels at this time it might be a bit ambitious on his part. Tony asks the board of any further questions? Chairman King calls for questions, no further questions. Tony would like the boards’ approval of Phase I and the approval to go ahead and begin the engineering of Phase II. Chair states must meet criteria of ordinance and that Newdam to understand if the go ahead is granted and ordinances are changed during their submission of additional phases
that the board is bound and must adhere to the most recent rules and cannot revert back to the beginning of the proposed application. Chair asks if the board has addressed or given Tony acceptable comments on all the raised issues, once again Tony states still not sure about the special use permit, Chairman King states going through under section 4 they have met 5A, initial density and final density. Applicant shall then develop proposed plan that they have provided and are eligible for Technical Review under section 5D, followed by open space development review. Chairman King states that he believes at any time Newdam can make formal application based under that ordinance and thanks him for spending the time in giving the board this information. Chair asks at this time does any other board member have further questions of the applicant? Norm Russell comments the hardest part he sees is doing this in Phases versus doing whole set-aside. Chair states maybe
minimum 1 AC and define boundaries. Norm Russell doesn’t want them to lose the freedom to shift and sway of the road design. Randy Orvis would like to comment that no more than 35% of open space could be non-buildable of the required portion, for the most part look at the whole parcel of non-developable, as he is not concerned about the total on whole parcel.
Tony asks what the next step for Newdam to be? Chair responds a formal request to CEO and Planning Department who will start the TRC process on the 1st phase and a conceptual review of the proposed phases. Basic discussion they should address any technical points regarding infrastructure, side walks, access, paving, etc….
Chairman King asks each board member if they have any final questions or comments. Tony thanks the board and the board reciprocates for their time with the presentation that Newdam provided.
· Preliminary Conceptual Plan Discussion by John Huckins – 20-lot subdivision (Tax Map R2, Lot 54, Chestnut Hill Road)
Chairman King advises - Due to a schedule change that the board did not previously have, this is a revised agenda for a preliminary conceptual design by John Huckins that is now being brought before the board. Somehow had originally slipped through the cracks.
Chairman King opens the floor to Paul Esswein for discussion on this and explains the revisions of the agenda. Bottom line, this proposed project had gotten disregarded until last week when the TRC meeting was held. Paul Esswein detailed the findings of TRC; he now turns the floor over to the developer for explanation on his proposal.
David Mott, Crown Point Survey and Engineering introduces himself to the board as representation for John and Cheryl Huckins and their proposed project on Chestnut Hill Road, located halfway between Cocheco Road and the Rochester Town Line, East of Dodge Cross Road and on the Southern part of the road. Approximately 80 AC, zone is SR1 each lot approximately 1 AC minimum, frontage of 150’, set back of 25’ and side of 15’, proposes a loop type road with 1 curve cut, road length 3072 feet with 50 ft ROW, Dave Mott presents each board member with reduced copies for viewing. Each lot to have separate septic and wells with suitable leaching areas around test pits (which have been done). Dave Mott went into great details explaining lot layouts, dimensions, abutters to
proposed property, etc. At this point it is a conceptual plan and he (Dave Mott) now would like to open the floor to the board for discussion.
Chairman King addresses board members for comments; Bob Talon questions his notification with DES regarding wetlands, John Huckins replies that he has been in contact with them and their suggestion was to go before the Planning Board for discussions first. Bob also questions the location of the conservation land, John Huckins replies located at the back of the property and he will be meeting with the conservation commission who might invoke changes to his lot lines for adjustment to allow for more open space.
Chairman King asks John Huckins if he has more questions that need to be addressed, only 1; that being one way in and out versus a 2 way. Road agent suggested 1 way however, John Huckins would like the boards’ opinion concerning the road cuts. Chairman King asks board for questions or opinions on this matter that would specifically address the 900-foot road and the 2-way road or 1 shortened loop with a dead end. Most members agreed with a 2-way road. Chairman King ask if they have addressed all of Mr. Huckins concerns, yes..at this point and we would like to go before the conservation commission and get their thoughts and then come back to the planning board for further discussions.
Chairman Kings asks once again, any closing thoughts? Dave Mott and John Huckins thanks the board, Chair replies courtesies.
Chairman King advises at this point we will go to the public hearing portion of this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ( )P.M.
1. Application for 2-Lot Subdivision by Stephen Brunelle, Pound Rd. (Tax Map R37, Lot 6).
Chairman King handed out memo to each board member from the Planning Board Director, and now turns the floor over to Paul Esswein for discussion on interpretation regarding this application, before the board continues. This sub-division was brought before the board prior to Paul Esswein joining the Town of Farmington. Issues were raised whether or not this lot could meet the conditions and be sub-divided, because of its’ location on a Class 6 road. Issue is in the definition in the ordinance itself. It states lot must have frontage on street, ordinance defines street as a Class 5 or better road, sub-division says has to have frontage on a public way. After conferring with Town Attorney and CEO they interpreted the definition of a street that is used in zoning ordinance the one
that would control this situation and therefore this sub-division does not meet the standards of the zoning ordinance and that further it would require a variance from the ZBA. The recommendation of the Planning Board Department is to continue this hearing until such time as applicant goes to the ZBA and decides what to do. The applicant can appeal decision to the ZBA.
Chairman King opens the floor to the public to speak on behalf of this application. John Doyle stated in an earlier year there was a specific Town meeting held to vote on sub-division of class 6 roads. Chairman King replies Yes in 2000 and at that time it passed however; subsequent years zoning was revised and an error was made by not putting into the new proposed zoning ordinance, so when old zoning ordinance was superceded it was appealed and replaced and it did not get incorporated. Mr. Lawrence spoke about his understanding of class 6 road that dates back to the 40’s. Chair states…before his time and then defined what the classification of Class 6 roads are again. Harold Butt spoke about the early ’84 / ’86 time frame and his property location
at the opposite end of Pound Road and the agreement that was made at that time with the ZBA. Harold Butt refers to what Mr. Daigle originally agreed do in support of Pound Road and the widening. Chairman King believes it falls under the ability for them to ask for building permits on a Class 6 road and it is up to the town. The board reviews such applications and can make recommendations but the ultimate decision is to the Selectmen to give or not give permits on a Class 6 road.
Chairman King asks, any other members of the public have comments on this application? Chair now closes public hearing portion on this matter. Chair makes motion for any discussion? Troy Robidas makes motion to go along with what out professional people have outlined here and advises the applicant to go in the other direction to get a variance with the ZBA. Board members have discussion amongst themselves. Bob Talon makes a motion to deny application as it does not meet the requirements, it is incomplete, 2nd the motion Troy Robidas. Chairman King asks any discussion. No further discussion, all those in favor of motion to deny as complete and not in compliance with zoning
ordinance. All agree. Motion passes.
2. Application for Site Review continuation by Claremont Properties, LLC, N.H. Rte 11 (Tax Map R20,
Lots 20 & 21) to add a 240’ x 60’ self-storage building in the rear of the existing self-storage facility.
Chairman King thanks Claremont Properties for the patience (now 8:45p.m.). Make note Paul Parker is in attendance and now be seated.
Mike Sievert stated the last time we came before the board we were looking at the proposal related to road access to come through area as shown (showing map), also discusses special use permit for expansion and potential for construction in this 100’ set-back. This proposal that we come back with we have removed all the work within a 100’ set-back and also made a trip to the conservation department for re-classification of the wetlands as Class 3 wetland, now this proposal here we have removed the road (Chairman King interrupts to clarify date = ltr dtd 10/18) see C2 which would be the best place to start. We have re-graded that road and re-orientated it to come out of that existing pavement by that existing building and pulled that
around and still have 2 culverts in there and still have enough room to put the rip wrap apron based on that flow within the end of the 100’ setback, no work will be done within that setback this also reduces the wetland impact from 1400+- sq. ft down to 900 +- sq. ft which was also presented to the Conservation Commission. It is a minimum impact project and they stated they would not have any comments on that. Re-submitted reduced wetland impact up to wetlands bureau and they’ve already accepted the project, so that’s underway. The other issue was the whole wetland re-classification this whole are showed up on your wetland inventory map. Chairman King interjects comments about the letter received from the conservation commission, directed this to Paul Esswein explaining the re-classification of this. Originally submitted as pond surface water now it is just a shrub, scrub wetland, completely different type. Mike Sievert ends
his presentation stating they are back here tonight with most of, if not all the previous questions answered; we look forward to approval now.
Chair would like to open up comment from our Planning Director. Chair asks Paul Esswien if he has had time to review? Paul replies, yes. Chair opens discussion to the board. Discussions consisted of non-vehicular items in a climate controlled environment, full boundary survey, slope requirements, proposed lighting, provisions for water and sewer.
Chair asks any other board members have further questions or thoughts? Hiram asks what was it they proposed before? Mike Sievert replies same thing just had them down a little further so that the swail goes into that buffer, but nothing has changed there. Norm Russell has a couple of things to ask 1) Is this will now become the access along the end of the buildings to get into the back of this here (showing map area) and it is not showing on the application the use of this property on the front of existing currently you utilize it adjacent to Rattle Snake Brook for storage of rental vehicles which actually when originally came to get permission to have rental vehicles said that these would not be stored there, but that is now going to become access to there (showing map
area). Norm Russell asks where will they be storing these vehicles that you rent out which our stored along here (showing map) which is fairly close to Rattle Snake Brook. Val Sommers replies that some may be stored up in back, he did not realize that there were restrictions on storing the vehicles there. Most of the time the vehicles are out front mainly on Monday or Tuesday are the heaviest time, but they can put them out back or if there is no room I’ll just have to take them over to their other location in Newmarket. Norm Russell interjects---what you are saying is that you would no longer store vehicles there as part of this approval. Norm is also curious about one other thing (maybe you have answered this question and I did not get it) but, I am looking at your record of revision and looking at original drawings, is there some reason why the finger of wetland that comes down into here from above has been eliminated. Mike Sievert
replies yes, originally they had delineated that as a wetland and then went back in with a soil scientist and removed all that as non jurisdictional and had it taken off. Norm Russell asks if that would be worthy of recording that revision, where it is a change to the plan? Mike Sievert replies, yes he could. It was in a letter submitted that specifically states to take it out from BHK Associates. Barry Keith is a botanist wetland scientist and not a soil scientist, so it doesn’t meet the 3 criteria’s and he brought Dave Elaine (spelling) back in to see if it met the soil criteria and that what is explained in the letter Mike Sievert can put the revision in their stating it was taken out. Chairman King says to note this citing of this letter dated September 7th. Because if it comes up in the future it will be in his file. Chairman King please continue Norm so do you have any provisions in the event
where you get water flow, how would you deal with it? Mike Sievert shows Norm (map) exactly where it will go on the different high points in the wetland areas.
Bob Talon asks that he noticed by moving the culverts you added a vegetated treatment square. Mike states yes it’s new and shows exactly where it will be going. Shows Bob Talon the various steepness of the areas that he’s questioned. Bob Talon I’m good.
Troy Robidas-Where do you put all the snow that you will be piling up and where is it all going to wind up. Mike Sievert shows on the map the backside where it can go. Sloped area which will be grated off. Troy is concerned that it would seep down into the brook somehow. Mike Sievert states that is why the treatment swell (spelling) is there. Enough treatment area before the melting snow hits the brook. It has a treatment swail as well as fully vegetated which Mike showed last time, Troy Robias yes I missed that 1st meeting I was absent and shouldn’t ask to many questions with that regard. Chairman King what else Troy, Troy that’s all I was thinking about for now. Chairman King now directs to Paul Parker,
the last time we met, he questioned the traffic study and you stated that you were going to try to obtain the letter from the transportation department. Is that correct? Mike Sievert responds yes, and I made a formal application rather than a notification due to the expansion and there is a 30 day waiting period which equals November 5th. So no letter until that time without the intervention of the Town of Farmington. Alan Garland is who he spoke with. Paul Parker questions, you did go to the TRC is that correct? Mike – Yes. The Fire Chief also there? Mike – Yes. Paul Parker, the roadway only has 1 way in 1 way out, did the Fire Chief have issues with entrances and exits? Mike Sievert– Fire Chief did not have the time at TRC but did note the shortness of distance and suggested an alarm system be installed and tied into the whole system. Val Sommers explains it will be tied into a
private system which they presently have and they private system then notifies the Fire Department. Paul Parker, do you feel that is sufficient? Mike Sievert – feels that it is sufficient. Paul Parker says aren’t you close in proximity to Barron Brothers next door, Val Sommers explained that the Fire Chief said they would pull into the small access area if need be. Paul Parker asks about the reasonability to set up some type of emergency exit through Barron Brothers? Val Sommers says they are good neighbors and he have to talk to them as the abutters. He will ask Barron Brothers. Mike Sievert does not believe there would be a problem as the grade is very similar between both lots.
Troy Robidas questions the fence, Val Sommers across back side of buildings, and Mike Sievert points out on the map where exactly the fence is located. Troy questions access from Barron Brothers through fence and both Val & Mike reply on how the access might be gained. Troy questions what the usage of the buildings will be (as he missed the 1st meeting) comment that storage containment in this new project is climate controlled with heat and air conditioning. Troy asks what is to be stored there? Val responds different clientele for this storage facility, house hold goods, antiques, Troy no vehicles, Val – no. Troy motorcycles or things of that nature. Val in the past has stored such items at their other facilities. Troy is that
a requirement to drain fluids, when storing those particular types of vehicles. Val responds yes that is correct and you must be careful who you allow to store such items. Troy – your not proposing those type items be stored in this back area. Val – no. Val does comment that his Newmarket NH does have vehicle storage. Chairman King interjects that in their application, the building will be storage of non vehicular items, in a climate controlled environment at or near 60 degrees. Chairman King says by original application from the TRC meeting, the applicant is requesting a waiver from a full boundary survey, I believe that was addressed. Mike responds yes they took that out and addressed. The other waiver was the slope requirement, Mike – yes this area here (showing map). Chairman King have you prepared a written waiver on that? Have you submitted to this before? Did they rule on it. Members of the board comment – no. Chairman King has it in original packet here that was
in the original 4 page letter. Chairman King asks about the proposed lighting for this site. Mike has cut off wall mounts. Chairman King about the right of way. Back building have provisions for water and sewer, Mike – No. Chairman King states excess snow storage should be in the backside of the rear building where they have room.
Any discussion? Chairman King (applicant requested waiver regarding slopes under article 6.02, section C in excess of 3 to 1 in grade). Also asked the planning board to approve the waiver based on provisions of erosion control proposed on those slopes and details for construction included on sheet D2 of the site plan package. Bob Talon makes motion to grant waiver as required 2nd Paul Parker. Chair asks, any further discussion? No further discussion. All those in favor of granting motion as required. Passes-motion granted upon the fulfillment of 1) include revision note regarding removal of wetland note “BHK ASSOC. LTR” 2) NH DOT Traffic impact letter 3) Snow storage to the rear of buildings and 4) Wetlands permit for impact
crossing. Chair recognizes 5 minutes to go (9:55 p.m.) motion to continue meeting by Bob Talon, 2nd Troy Robidas. Chairman King advises we may proceed, we are in overtime. Is there any further discussions on storage, access, vehicular storage? Much more discussion between the members of the board, Val Sommers and Mike Sievert on the vehicle temporary storage and where the location of these vehicles may be kept on a temporary basis.
Chair asks if we have a motion on this application, it is 10:08 p.m. Bob Talon makes a motion upon getting recommendation from the DOT and wetland note and permits, snow storage in the rear, also contingent upon filing the revision to the plan, 2nd by Troy Robidas. Chair asks any discussion, and then asks if this has addressed the parking issue where they were going to stick to the dis-enforcement of the original approval, Val Sommers commented about dis-enforcement of the original and then indicated that he was not aware off and will take care of it. Norm Russell says what they agreed to in the original to comply with all the suggestions of the conservation commission that was under the original application still enforced. No further discussion,
motion passes.
3. Application for Subdivision continuation (change) - Change apartment units to condo units by
Farmington Realty LLC (Tax Map U10, Lot 114), Glen/Blaine Streets.
Craig Lancey, Farmington Realty LLC brought additional plans, and apologizes for not having reduced copies for each board member. He identifies parking spaces, which were a previous concern; Delineation of units and other requests were floor plan, which are included.
Chair comments the concern regarding proposed deeds, not a typical function to create deeds prior to transfer that was discussed with the Town Attorney. In lieu of floor plans created and materialized as a function of deeds. Laura Scott sent a letter to Ernie Creveling that was read to the board by Paul Esswein outlining major concerns of the floor plan and draft deed language. Chair asks board for comments, or any further question for Mr. Lancey. Discussions amongst board members. Chair asks any motion regarding this application. Troy Robidas makes motion based upon complying with the bylaws being resolved. Chair motions to approve, contingent upon final legal review and approval. Chair asks for 2nd, 2nd Bob Talon. Any
discussion? Motion is to accept as proposed with contingencies of final legal review and approval. No further discussion. All those in favor. Motion passes.
4. Application for 2-Lot Subdivision by Sylvia J. Howard Living Trust, Hancock Street (Tax Map U1, Lot 11).
Don Volts, Linden Design Association on behalf of Sylvia Howard. Initial plans provided to board members by Don Volts. Don Volts states not exactly sure about procedures. Chair explains procedures as basically the boards lets him present their basic application and then go into comments by planning staff and then opens the floor for questions.
Don Volts begins presentation of the lot and plans for the proposed sub-division that would include a hammerhead turnaround with each lot having 150’ of frontage and over 1 AC of land. State previously approved sub-division of both lots having been inspected by a state inspector. By doing such a sub-division, a section of road sooner or later would have to be accepted by the Town of Farmington similar to any other sub-division and by doing so allows for both lots, that’s it in a nutshell.
Chair states at this point we will open up the floor to the Planning Director, Paul Esswein who states he has just reviewed this application within the last 2 days and just looking at the presented plan his interpretations are that the changes in the road are not with the sub-division that they are proposing. Discussions between Paul Esswein and Don Volts with regards to this proposed property lines and road turnaround.
Discussions between Don Volts and the board continue. Chair opens up for further discussions. Chair states at this late hour (after 11:00 p.m.) we need to do something. Troy Robidas comments, does not meet frontage requirement of 300’, not sub-dividable. Bob Talon argument is street doesn’t have and end and continues on to Town of Farmington land still has potential for something to happen on that piece of land. Chair says his thoughts are to continue these discussion to a future meeting, as we do not want the applicant to feel that she/he has to do anything that we suggested and give him a chance to work with Paul Esswein to see if there is a solution that can be proposed that would comply with current zoning. Also, something that the Town of
Farmington would be willing to do to make it a go.
Paul Parker comments; being that it is of late hour and you did have to wait so long I apologize. This project is going to require a lot more discussion as for presentation and does not make allowance for public comment. I’d like to make a motion that we continue this meeting. 2nd by Bob Talon. Chair any discussion? No further discussion. All in favor. Motion passes.
Motion to adjourn by Paul Parker, 2nd motion Bob Talon. Any discussion? No further discussion. All those in favor. Meeting adjourned.
APPROVED
______________________________ _________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Planning Board
Town of Farmington
Accepted as written 12/21/2004
| 
