PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Hiram Watson, Norm Russell, Troy Robidas
Absent: Robert Talon, Gerald White (called in absent), Don MacVane
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Ernie Creveling, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Paula Proulx, Selectman, Margaret Russell, ZBA Chairman
· Chairman Charlie King called to order at 7:17p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
· Review and approve Planning Board Minutes of November 2, 2004. Hiram Watson made a motion to accept minutes as written, 2nd by Paul Parker. Chairman King any discussion? Paul Parker comments that changes to line 4 of minutes should read A MEMBER, secretary typed in Paul Parker’s name and he was not in attendance at that time, and secretary did not clearly hear on tape who commented on the strikes throughs’. Also, noted on the last page to change Park to Parker. Norm Russell wanted the comments from Claremont Properties presentation added to the minutes that were omitted, i.e. access to property,
noting of the applicants representative, stated conditions for 1st site review, not being in compliance with previous vehicle location. Add these changes as suggested by Norm Russell, 2nd by Paul Parker, All those in favor, motion to add passes. Board agreed that the actual minutes of November 2, 2004 could have the changes incorporated directly into those minutes, all changes are in bold text.
· Voluntary merger of pre-existing lots by Robert C. Smith – 5 & 9 Loring Avenue (Tax Map U2, Lots 66 & 67) by merger will make the lots (Tax Map U2, Lot 67).
Discussion by board that neither lot is 1 acre in total and there is no water/sewer on premises. Discussion by chair that 1 lot is a conforming lot and 1 lot is not. Lots must be 21,780 sq. ft. minimum size = ? acre Paul Parker has reservations of merging 2 lots. Chairman King based upon our zoning ordinance what can we use a criteria? Chair references 674.39a of the NH Planning and Land Use Regulation book “VOLUNTARY MERGER” (see attached descriptions) “except where such a merger would create a violation of the current ordinance or regulation”. Violation of Section 1.04 C2 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 2.04B of the same Ordinance (see attached descriptions). Discussions continue there is no designation of where the building will be located, no
designation of lot lines. Assumptions by board for reason of merger are to combine tax bills i.e.; 1 tax bill versus 2. Paul Parker motions for denial referencing 1.04C2 and 2.04B as reasons; Troy Robidas 2nd the motion, Chair asks for discussion, Norm Russell, did the applicant pay fee, yes $20.00 lot merger fee. Norm Russell wants to check with the Planner, he does see issues, however he personally would like to see it continued and not denied. Chair motions for denial, all in favor, Norm Russell opposed, Paul Parker, Troy Robidas, Hiram Watson in favor of denial. Motion passes. Notice of Decision to be issued.
OLD BUSINESS:
1) Continuation of Site Review Regulations for amendment changes - Continued for further discussion at the December 21, 2004 Planning Board Workshop Meeting
2) Continuation of Critical Lands Overlay District Ordinance Amendments:
Troy Robidas was hoping to see all the grade out on a tax map, it is one thing to see on these maps (provided by Norm Russell), Paul Parker stated that had booklet in a sub-committee meeting similar to Troy’s’ request above. Hiram interjected if someone walked in here tomorrow and looked at this, this is 3 versions and nothing they can look, 3 versions of “something”. I know this is a workshop, but before it goes to the public there should be something for the public to come in and look at. Troy interjects, doesn’t know if it’s this way or that way. Chairman King explains that is why it is open for discussion and if you guys have inclinations either way we will take that back and try to incorporate them. Hiram voices his concerns for
protecting the people that are down there now (like where Mullen lives) Paul Parker interjects that he thought they had done that. Troy directs a question to Charlie, wanting a couple of things cleared up 250 and 660 what does the 250 mean? Under zoning ordinance we have water front protection requirements 100’ on all perennials streams and water bodies. To accomplish goal, they have pointed to that part of the zoning and for this overlay that area is extended to 250’ and the criteria of what you can do with that is based upon what is allowed under that section of the ordinance. Troy-but that’s really 660, Charlie-no, the 250 becomes a hard line the 660 from the center (which is total), continued discussions amongst the board members for clarification and encroachment issues regarding the 250 and 660 areas.
To encroach on the 250 area along the waterways, there are some opportunities, which are based upon our zoning ordinances, which would require a special use permit, however that being dependent upon the actual waterway of encroachment. Chairman King explains that some water bodies are not allowed to have special use permits. Paul Parker, Troy Robidas confer back and forth about the different water ways that are not allowed. Norm Russell interjects that likely there would be some suggestions for additions to that list of critical water bodies, Chairman King states such as the reservoir, which would be considered to add additional water bodies that you do not allow a special use permit, such as The Reservoir, The Whaleback and The Cocheco, because of their designated body that the Town of
Farmington is trying to protect that you do not allow a special use permit on those bodies of water. This has already been accomplished on The Mad River and Dick Dame Brook. Norm Russell states there has been a better suggestion to remove some of the tributaries as it is quite restricted.
Changes under F) Habitat Protection Corridor requirements, item 3 Special Use Permit “d” and “e” should be changed to “a” and “b”.
The board members continue detailed discussions about the 660 allotted areas and the 10% allocations of total area, as well as the descriptions by Norm Russell regarding the differences of the rivers make-up, and the surrounding tributaries.
Chairman King comments that they are going to have to go back to scheduling a public hearing when they have a more final draft, at least 2 more and then the public can have input and hopefully make final changes or it doesn’t get forwarded. If it can’t come to a conclusion in a document that works, then it would be something the board would decide not to continue with and that’s an additional reason to get everyone’s opinion and try to take it into account to enable us to draft something and accomplish such a goal and not be to restrictive.
Chairman asks for any additional comments, Troy Robidas-No; Hiram comments that he doesn’t like doing this based upon board suggestions and they should really allow the people that own the land to listen to what we have to say and work with them, a member interjects that this is actually a continuation and nobody elected to attend. Hiram continues to voice his opinions on “the people” of the area that is to be impacted by this “Critical Lands Overlay” amendment. Chairman King says when it comes up for final draft form, that we should re-notice, Hiram doesn’t think that it is out of the question to send copies of these maps and outlines to each of those that own more than 10 AC in that area, it won’t cost that much and might save a lot of grief.
Chairman King reflects this has come before the board in the past, if they were to adopt that criterion of notification that precedence might be set for the future and legally he doesn’t believe they are required to adopt as part of the public notice. Chairman King uses Rte 11 as an example for notification of individual land owners when zoning ordinance has proposed changes, which is more stringent than an overlay. Hiram states if he was a land owner he would like to be notified. Norm Russell interjects the reality is we have a vehicle to deal with it and the only real thing we are authorized to use, and if elect to do more than we put ourselves in a position of liability if we miss someone in the notices, if that would be the policy. Norm agrees that we should notify people, and we do notices in the paper. Chairman King states we have continued the changes into this meeting, Troy asks does this have to be voted on by the public, a member
comments yes, Troy asks how the heck are we going to draft language that they will understand what this nature is about. This will be a ballot vote, correct. Chairman King – Yes.
Paul Parker asks what are we doing tonight, just discussing this or trying to make decisions on this. Chairman King thinks that as a board we should come to a decision if we should have the sub-committee continues on it, by listening to the input of the other members and set a date of when we will have a public hearing on this possibly. Also have final draft of this Critical Lands Overlay distributed to members of the planning board 1 week prior, minimum. Chairman King’s thoughts continue that if they have the sub-committee try and formulate their thoughts and concerns into a final proposed draft. Paul Parker interrupts Chairman King with a question, regarding the discussion in last sub-committee regarding version 1, concern about 500’ back from Old Bay Road. Troy Robidas
asks if the committee is split or just trying to get feedback, Chairman King replies 3 to 1.
Chairman King has the same concerns that protections are in place for the existing land owners, so as not to be over burdened. Right now we would have to go back to the tax maps and review each and every lot for impact, which we have already gone around once already in all zones. We will go around them again and review each individual lot and say how that affects this lot, too restrictive, is there a mechanism to obtain relief through this in our zoning ordinance. When they go to obtain that relief do they meet the criteria of this and the zoning to get the relief? Norm Russell comments that they have gone around and looked at every lot, whether or not this is sub-dividable or not. If so, how does it impact? It could be sub dividable but does not have to go to cluster because
there is no potential for major sub division. Troy asks about garages not being allowed on some and Norm says that is correct, as Hiram indicated his opinion is that this is too restrictive for some of the small lot owners.
More continued discussions amongst the board members regarding the actual mapping and the notification to the exiting land owners, the lot sizes, the existing lot lines, the setbacks, the boundaries, location changes that might happen and what the impact of those changes will affect. What you’re trying to protect in this plan is what the description should based on features such as pure water, wildlife habitat and the forester uplands.
Paul Parker says another concern he had was the committee had an area constituting the overlays as 4 out of 5 then somehow got changed to “met a majority”, he believes it should remain 4 out of 5. “Met a majority” leaves too much of an ambiguity. Majority is 3 out of 5, Norm agrees 4 out 5 “you can call me John Kerry if you want” but I changed my mind on that, I like this majority better. Chairman King asks how many other parcels of land in The Town of Farmington meet 3 out of 5 that should be incorporated in this overlay. Chairman Kings answers is that there is more than just 2 pieces if you go down to 3, so if you say a majority, my opinion is that we would have to go back and go through every square acre. Hiram asks where did you
come up with the 2500 acres? Chairman King replies that is was based upon the supplied information of JHT Associates (Jeff Taylor Associates), professional planners who are doing the master plan update. Chairman King comments discussions previously on the threshold being more or less? The fact is, if it is less….Troy Robidas jumps in with “if its more, than there is no land to consider than when we put this up, but Chairman King says again if it’s less than (multiple conversations ongoing about this and not clear on tape). Troy Robidas says based on that number of 2500 that where they get the 2 pieces otherwise if we make it bigger or smaller we get too much land or not enough land at all. Paul Parker says part of this discussion is where are we getting the 2500 acre? Maybe it should be 2000, or maybe 1500 acre? What other properties are we going to take? What other properties should we look at? Where taking a looking at 4 out 5, Paul
Parkers comments are a summary of what all has been previously discussed in relation to the 4 out 5 met the majority, etc. Paul states that they could sit here for an additional 6 months and come up with all sorts of conditions and thoughts and his thought is that we have something that has been drafted and looked at sub-committee and take what we have, does it satisfy what they are trying to do as a starting point.
Provide that to the taxpayers and see if they are willing to go for it. Chairman King stops the detailed overview thoughts of Paul Parkers on the continuation of this and states he is in agreement in a lot of ways and as a planning board they need to put a stake in the ground that they want a public hearing on this and a final draft 1 week to all members of the planning board before that public hearing and if that entails 1 additional sub-committee meeting to resolve it than that’s one
additional sub-committee. Let’s put that stake in the ground for a public hearing and final draft available, at code enforcement / planning department and available in mail to all planning board members and just state this is the date and we are going to have another public hearing, put the notice in the paper. Troy Robidas thinks that the sub-committee needs to decide between themselves which version of they want to go with and just bring it into the board. Many versions presented tonight. Hiram says 2 weeks to do it and maybe he throw it before, do something, don’t stall it, just have a question, bring it in, have an answer for him, 2 weeks is not unreasonable for the planning board members to have available to the public.
Chairman King asks if there is motion for a date to do that. Paul Parker says we’ve already looked at the next public hearing date and that is the 7th of December and we already know that there is a lot on that list, the next date is the 21st and that is our workshop. Norm Russell says can’t the workshop meeting be a public hearing? Paul Parker says that’s what he was thinking.
The board continues discussions to narrow down the actual date for the public hearing relating to this Critical Lands Overlay presentation. Norm Russell reflects that collectively they have already put in over 100 hours. Paul Parker directs question to Ernie Creveling about the previously held public meeting on this issue, comments back and forth about the 120 day threshold and when the notice was actually put into the paper.
Chairman King suggests a 5 minute recess to read a letter from the past Planning Secretary Fran Osborne to all the board members. Norm Russell 2nds the motion, all in favor. Letter read.
Conversations relating to the December 7th date to make a meeting on the Critical Lands Overlay for a public hearing. The final version of this has to be filed December 7th. Troy doesn’t believe we can meet that as there are 2 separate versions their looking at now. Paul Parker reiterates that the final version has to be filed December 7th, Chairman King replies that is 5 Tuesdays before any special Town of Farmington meeting. Filed meaning must be posted and on file with the Town of Farmington’s Clerks office, 5 Tuesdays before the special town meeting or town meeting in its completed form, final version, no changes.
Chairman King says realistically, if we are going to do this and not get into a timing problem, which has been a problem in the past then we are going to have a public hearing, Paul Parker interjects with December 7th, Chairman King replies No, ten days before the 7th, because a 2nd public hearing it has to be 10 days after the 1st public hearing. If it is held 10 days before the 7th then you can make some substantial change on that as a final draft for a final public hearing on the 7th as part of our meeting and then file in the clerks office prior to midnight. If a substantial change had to take place on the 7th or the planning board did not feel comfortable in forwarding it then it would die. Because at that
point, it would not make the grace period and would just go to the town meeting in March. Conversations continue between the board members and Ernie Creveling regarding the actual and realistic dates for posting of the Critical Lands Overlay Ordinance along with the publishing of the Public Hearing Notices. Discussions also continue regarding this week’s special Town meeting and the 3 ordinances that are on for voting.
Chairman King says, the fact is if we are going to hold a special Town meeting at a cost of 3,000-5,000, for this 1 article, we first of all have to come to a resolution that the community is comfortable with. Which is a public hearing on the 30th of November, with no substantial changes, on file by the 7th of December, special town meeting in January. We must meet all those thresholds to have a special town meeting for this one thing.
The board brings into this discussion as examples, previous meetings with an applicant for their proposed cluster developments, their set-back requirement and their intentions on land preservations within such type districts.
Paula Proulx, Selectman, public in attendance, gives her views and comments on how the board should move forward in starting somewhere to come to a resolution and agreement on what they want to happen and then move along to make it happen, then at the next meeting they could make some changes and each subsequent meeting make such changes until such time it is complete. Chairman King comments if you look at the history of this type of review process you will see that they have made the changes as so indicated and those changes have been in favor of the applicant. Paula Proulx says you must have a starting point and then continue on forward.
Chairman King and Selectman Proulx continue conversations on how to proceed on issues and change taking in count the Town of Farmington’s best interest. Hiram Watson and Paul Proulx have discussions based on individual notification to each land owner that ordinances will affect.
Chairman King stops this and asks to stay on task, stating that the planning board has to decide if this is going to go on the January special town meeting this special piece of zoning for the overlay district, that we would have to have a public hearing November 30th and on file at the town clerks office by the 7th of December. Troy asks if it doesn’t make that, when would the next time to be looked at. Chairman King states March meeting. Troy thinks we should take much more time an analyze this. Norm Russell says he hopes not much more analyzing needs to be accomplished and feels that they have sufficient input to finish this up.
Again there is more detailed discussions and opinions between the board members regarding how to move forward and when to go to public hearing. JHT Associates brought up again in this part of the discussion with regard to the 2500 acre in this overlay district.
Chairman King advises it is 2 – 3 minutes past the adjournment time (10:02p.m), are we at a point where someone is going to make a motion regarding how they would like to proceed. We need to make a decision on what we are doing tonight and we might as well make that decision and come to vote, someone make a motion to continue with this public hearing to recommendation of November 30th which means we could receive a final draft from the sub-committee and make no major changes on that night and make a special town meeting in January.
Paul Parker makes a motion to extend this meeting ? more hour from 10:03p.m., 2nd by Norm Russell, any discussion on extending the meeting, no further discussion, all those in favor 3 to 1, motion passes.
This meeting continues with further discussions about this overlay district ordinance.
Paul Parker would like to make a motion that Version 1 of the Overlay District Ordinance be accepted and forward that to a public hearing. Chairman King feels he will have to play devils advocate for that, to not review the suggestions that were brought before the board and sub-committee, Chairman King is in agreement to Version 1 his preference, however without hashing through all the other benefits and drawbacks to the other options…Norm Russell interjects that they are trying to protect the water body and discontinuing large area of the water body without providing protection and without providing contiguous habitat corridor should be discussed and evaluated further, that is my opinion. Once again, continued discussions between board members about these issues and JHT
Associates recommendations.
Paul Parker makes a motion to accept Version 1 – Revision 2 Critical Land Criteria with changes to met a majority, changing it back to 4 out 5 for majority. Also, grammatical changes to F) Habitat Protection Corridor requirements, item 3 Special Use Permit “d” and “e” should be changed to “a” and “b”. Both Versions 1 and 2 same.
Chairman King asks for 2nd motion. Motion fails for lack of a 2nd.
Chairman King asks for a motion from someone to remand this back to the sub-committee and continue this meeting to the 30th of November or a motion Paul Parker interjects that in 5 minutes he’s going to make a motion adjourn, Chairman Kings states he should make a motion to resolve this before making a motion to adjourn. Norm Russell agrees with Charlie that is should be remanded back to the sub-committee to put into the final version for review on the 30th of November. Chairman King asks Norm for motion, Norm replies yes, and states that he agrees to motion to remand this copy back for final version to be reviewed on November 30th, 2nd by Paul Parker. It will be a continuation of this public hearing, do we have any discussion. We are in discussion phase.
Hiram, wants to make a point of Version 1, on the 500’ set-back, if that wasn’t there he would not vote for this. Chairman King feels that it is his opinion that if we are going to have the final public hearing he would like see re-notice in the paper, that this is the final public hearing for this proposed zoning because this would be the 2nd continuation and it is not on TV he thinks it would be reasonable to notice in the paper. Ernie Creveling advises the board members of the dates and final versions that must be met. Chairman King defines dates as dealing with the final version on Wednesday November 17th and have the final copies to the planning department on Thursday for it to be noticed on Friday and if that doesn’t happen then it will die. No pressure.
Chairman King, we have a motion, we’ve had a 2nd, we’ve had discussion is there any further discussion? Okay, no further discussion time is up, all those in favor, motion passes, do we have any additional motions. Paul Parker makes a motion to re-notify publication to the November 30th hearing by Friday November 19th, do we have a 2nd, Troy Robidas. Do we have any further discussion? No further discussion. All those in favor, Motion passes.
Paul Parker makes a motion to adjourn, 2nd by Troy Robidas Any discussion, no discussion, all those in favor.
Paul Parker withdraws his motion to adjourn, 2nd by Troy Robidas. All those in favor, back in session.
Paul Parker makes a motion to continue items 3 & 4 to the next workshop meeting of December 21st, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
3) Continuation of Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Continued to next Planning Board Workshop Meeting of December 21, 2004.
4) Continuation of Subdivision Regulations for Amendment changes – Continued to next Planning Board Workshop Meeting of December 21, 2004.
Motion to adjourn by Paul Parker, 2nd by Troy Robidas, all those in favor, motion passes.
_____________________________ __________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Accepted as written 12-21-2004
| 
