PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004
356 Main Street
Members Present: Charlie King, Norm Russell, Hiram Watson, Gerald White
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Fran Osborne, Paul Esswein
Public Present: Margaret Russell (ZBA Chair), John Quinn (Fosters newspaper), John, Pauline & Frank
Scruton, Joyce White, Cyndi Paulin, Joann Doke, Lorraine & George Meyer, Cheryl &
John Huckins, Sue Ducharme (Conservation Commission), Randy Orvis (Surveyor),
Cathleen & Robert Place, Jane & John Wingate
· Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:10 p. m. Minutes of 9/28/04 and 9/29/04 were reviewed. Norm Russell made a motion to approve the September 28, 2004 minutes as written, Gerald White 2nd, motion carried. Minutes of September 29, 2004 were motioned for approval as written by Hiram Watson, Norm Russell 2nd , motion carried.
· Discussion by board on whether to do the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance 1st or the Critical Lands Overlay District. Hiram Watson made a motion to do the Critical Lands Overlay District 1st, Norm Russell 2nd, reason being many are present for this portion, motion carried, Gerald White undecided.
Critical Lands Overlay District (B) 1: add – refer to amendments presented.
Map II Clarification regarding Tax Map R49, 60, 61, 62 & 63. Norm corrected maps. Discussion on clarification.
· Motion by Paul Parker, 2nd by Hiram Watson to go to the “Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance,”
Motion carried. Discussion on proposed changed in 2. b.) thru f.)
Motion by Paul Parker to leave 2. f.) as is, Gerry White 2nd, motion carried.
2, e.) - fine
2. g.) – fine.
2. h.) – NUDE MODEL STUDIO - discussion on free or exchange of money.
Paul Parker made a motion to take out in 2. b.) 3rd sentence from end of paragraph – remove e, g, and h, Norm Russell 2nd, motion carried. Leave 2. c, d, f, and l.
Section 4. l.) discussion on good moral character. At the last meeting it was decided to strike the 1st sentence. Discussion on applicant paying for background check and regulating hiring procedure.
Paul Parker made a motion to strike out the 1st sentence “All operators and employees shall be of good moral character.” Leave remaining sentence as voted at last meeting, Gerald White 2nd, motion carried.
Chairman King opened meeting to the public.
Randy Orvis – the 1st public hearing should have been changes, this meeting should be minor changes. That’s a substantial change in Section 4. l.) Discussion on Section 4. g.) page 4 – you can have more than 1 Sexually oriented business in a building. Does h.) conflict with this? Discussion on promoting this type business.
Charlie King – changes were done at the last meeting. Section 4. l.) discussion on legal counsel opinion. Section 4. g.) “single” use only with 1,000 in between discussion. Intent is sexually oriented business not to be with another business on Rte. 11.
Norm Russell – directed to Randy Orvis. You have not tested this so you should not contradict it. Randy – this is the IB (Industrial Business) district and is only on Rte. 11. Discussion. Randy – we don’t need to promote sexually oriented businesses.
Paul Parker – we need something to protect us.
Charlie Kling – based on ability to regulate these type of businesses where should it be?
Randy Orvis – in the IB or other business zone. Discussion on limiting exposure to this type of business.
Paul Parker made a motion to accept as changed and schedule the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance for the Special Town Meeting November 18, 2004, Gerald White 2nd, motion carried.
· Meeting reconvened to “Critical Lands Overlay District.”
Robert Place – why do we want a special meeting to vote this in? Charlie King explained reason for having a special town meeting now is to avoid potential subdivision which could affect this. Mrs. Place asked who decided this. Charlie King – the Planning Board decided to include the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance with the Interim Growth Ordinance (IGO) and zoning amendments.
Map II Clarification Reference R49, 60, 62, 62 & 63 (see attached), discussion down to R61, Lo 21. Tax Maps were brought in for clarification. Norm Russell used large set of maps to show members of the public designated map and lot boundaries.
Chairman opened meeting to public comment.
Randy Orvis – Map R60, Lot 18 intersecting R49, lots 81 & 58. This gives you the impression this is 1,000’ away from the Cocheco River. It is not at that point. Discussion on bottom paragraph Page 1 and 1,000’ parallel. Also discussed a piece missing at the corner (a course). Discussion on wording and intent. See last paragraph Page 1 – Norm Russell (1) Map R49, Lot 44 continue in a straight line westerly to a point 1,000’ parallel to the Cocheco River. Norm Russell made a motion on page 2 3rd paragraph after Map R60, Lot 18, to the North corner of Map R49 Lot 44, then traveling along that line to a point 1,000’ from the Cocheco River, Hiram 2nd, all in favor, motion
carried.
Randy Orvis, Page 1 – 4th paragraph from bottom, after end of sentence, Paul made a motion – then traveling in a southwesterly direction to a point 1,000’ feet parallel to the Waldron Mill Pond, crossing Bay Road. Norm Russell made a motion, and Paul 2nd to change – then traveling in a southerly direction 1,000’ from and parallel to the Waldron Mill Pond, crossing Bay Road, motion carried.
John Scruton – I think the whole ordinance is wrong. Discussion of Open Space Cluster Ordinance and soil types which ties in the 40% open space. Discussion on examples. John – discussion if the Open Space Cluster Ordinance is not voted in favor & taking 40% of land for open space. Norm Russell – discussion on greater density allowance in that zone.
Charlie King – if we do not have a Cluster Ordinance it would revert back to the Overlay District. Discussion regarding state law. (D) 3.) Critical Lands District Overlay.
John Scruton – if you want to keep (D) 3.) discussion.
George Meyer – you need better maps. Before confusion reigned and still does.
John Scruton – is architectural review going before the public also. Charlie King – no. We do not have supporting documents to present that.
John Scruton – we wouldn’t want that in the AR (Agriculture Residential) – agricultural buildings should be exempt. Charlie King – a design manual is a long way off at present.
John Scruton – could we put this off until we see if “Critical Lands Overlay District” passes.
Sue Ducharme – one development is in the process in this overlay.
Norm Russell – interpretation (D) (3) – there may be some troublesome points here. Rather than scrap, delete the reference. Discussion. I don’t think we should be looking at rewording. Remove paragraph 3.) altogether. Discussion on 40% open space – wetlands vs. uplands. Minimum required – 35%.
Cheryl Huckins – putting this through with a developer in mind may be a legal issue.
Charlie King – this has been reviewed by legal counsel.
Paul Parker – discussion. We were not trying to develop this toward any specific piece or area of property. It is criteria based on wildlife and values we are trying to protect.
Hiram Watson (B) (3) 2500 acres – where did that come from – discussion. The majority of people who own these lands do not want it.
Sue Ducharme – my understanding is these properties are within the 2500 unfragmented blocks (shared with wildlife, etc. to survive). These passageways are vital for hunters and recreational use.
Randy Orvis – how far do you stretch criteria to meet 4 out of 5 criteria. I don’t see some of these parcels being next to protected lands. I think you’ve stretched the criteria to include more land.
Cyndi Paulin – water quality and the Cocheco River as valuable to our future discussion. The 1,000’ is selecting a reasonable area to balance critical resources. The Cocheco River Watershed Study and others were used.
Map I – Tract II Clarification – Page 2 of 3. Chairman opened to public comment.
John Huckins – if you look at 2. in the Cluster Ordinance calculations on baseline density discussed. You only need 1/3 in order to meet zoning requirement. Discussion on #1. Voluntary – on cluster (40 – 50% open space and full potential on open space). Discussion of farming potential.
Charlie King – discussion on restraints on non-buildable land – you only need 40,000 s. f. uplands for a lot to be buildable. Discussion on conventional vs. cluster development.
Joyce White – it was meant to be mandatory. There were many values, water, future value, etc. If the area fit the criteria for cluster, it would be mandatory if 4 out of 5 overlay criteria were present. Discussion.
John Scruton – optional method of baseline density discussion for critical overlay district land. Discussion on mandatory wording.
Paula Proulx – do another public hearing.
John Scruton – discussion on public hearing items being in effect as of the public hearing posting. John asked that (D) (3) be removed.
Randy Orvis – that’s a substantial change.
John Scruton – the landowner in B. (1) is going to have to cluster close to the road.
Charlie King – houses at front and open space at rear discussion.
John Scruton – are you going to try and put houses close to the road (Meaderboro Road area).
Paula Proulx – discussion on trying to stay within 500’ of the road. On existing town roads, 250’ frontage per 3-acre lot is required with 50’ setback (AR zone).
Norm Russell – the house could be back 500’ or close to it on road lots. Discussion.
Paul Scruton – is that statement requiring or demanding it. Discussion. The applicant would have to show what is practical.
Cyndi Paulin – if the landowner wants to break off a piece, it could be done with the 500’.
John Huckins – discussion on major and minor subdivisions.
John Wingate – 500’ back from the road is under (B) 3.)
John Scruton – how would this affect marketability of a conservation easement?
Cheryl Huckins – questioned unfragmented parcels – large tracts without substantial development.
John Scruton – I like the concept if the landowner is not being disadvantaged.
Chairman King – closed meeting to public comment.
Hiram Watson – I think this needs more work per public concerns before Special Town Meeting.
Norm Russell – (D) 3.) to make this useable, we didn’t foresee increasing the density. Discussion. In the requirement to do cluster, maybe we should have made a statement you have an option on buildout bonus with conventional vs. cluster. We need further consideration. Gerald White – agrees with Norm.
Paul Parker – good questions brought out. I understand public concerns. It’s clear it needs more work. Discussion on (D) 3.). We may do more harm pushing this tonight. Maybe we should work on better wording.
Charlie King – we can do (1) not forward, (2) forward as written or (3) motion to continue to public hearing.
Norm Russell – agrees it can’t be fixed to be suitable to protect resources and community. If we schedule for continuance, it would go back to the subcommittee to address issues that have come forward.
Norm Russell made a motion to continue the “Critical Lands Overlay District” for rework by the Planning Board at the November 16, 2004 workshop meeting. Public concerns need to be addressed, the Master Plan subcommittee is working with the planner on this.
Paul Esswein – by continuing, are you considering it for November 18, 2004 Special Town Meeting. I think you need to drop it and start over.
Norm Russell – discussion on time frame starting September 29, 2004 – we have 120 days to have the special town meeting.
Hiram Watson – asked Randy Orvis and John Scruton to write down their ideas and attend the meeting for the Planning Board workshop meeting on October 19, 2004.
Norm Russell – the Zoning Subcommittee would normally be working on the Critical Lands Overlay District. Norm Russell made a motion to continue the public hearing to the Planning Board Workshop meeting on November 16, 2004 to review revisions by the Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee regarding public concerns, Paul Parker 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Motion was made by Paul Parker to extend the meeting to 10:30 p. m. and five minutes recess at 9:55
p. m., Gerald White 2nd, motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 10:05 p. m.
· Open Space-Residential Cluster Development Ordinance:
Page 6 - XIII. a) The required Open Space shall not contain more than 35% Non-Buildable Land. This change was voted on at the last meeting.
Page 7 – XIII. e) Open Space land shall consist of at least one contiguous, undivided preserve that equals or exceeds 65% of the total Open Space.
Page 7 – XIV. a) 2) The entirety of the Open Space consists of 25% or less Non-Buildable Land.
Page 7 – XIV. b) 4) More than 90% of the total Open Space is in one undivided parcel.
Page 14 – XXI. Frontage Lot – 2nd line – and which abuts an existing right-of-way, Class I, II or V highway within the Town of Farmington. Motion by Charlie King, 2nd by Paul Parker to make this change, motion carried.
Discussion with Planner, Paul Esswein, on frontage conflict concerns. On page 3 – Tract frontage discussed and on page 14 – is frontage “tract” or “lot” frontage? Discussion on this possibly being 2 types of frontage.
Page 3 VIII. – should be Tract Frontage, not Lot Frontage – discussion. Motion by Norm Russell, 2nd by Paul Parker to change Lot Frontage to Tract Frontage, motion carried.
Page 5 – XII. c) 3rd line choose one or more of the following methods (delete by). Charlie motioned to approve this change, Norm Russell 2nd, motion carried.
Page 5 – 5. line 2 – consistent with the objectives of this Article. Charlie motioned to approve this change, Norm Russell 2nd, motion carried.
Chairman King opened the public hearing to public input.
Randy Orvis – page 9 – discussion on percentages. Discussion on criteria to meet bonuses. What triggers the 5%, 10%, etc.
Chairman King closed public input portion.
Discussion on on page 10 – c) 1) 50’ minimum of frontage; 2) 75’ minimum of frontage; 3) 125’ minimum of frontage; 4) 100’ minimum of frontage for three (3) unit structures per three (3) unit multi-family structure and 125’ minimum of frontage for four (4) unit structures per four (4) unit multi-family structure. Paul Parker made motion to make this change, Hiram Watson 2nd, motion carried.
Paul Parker made a motion to forward the Open Space-Residential Cluster Development Ordinance to the November 18, 2004 Special Town Meeting, Norm Russell 2nd, motion carried.
· Phased Development Ordinance 3.17 of Section 3.00 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance:
Charlie King – doesn’t believe this is worthy to forward to Special Town Meeting. Discussion on legal leaving 3.17 (c) (1) (c) and 3.17 (c) (2) a) through d).
Paul Parker is in favor of this Ordinance. Recommends forwarding it to the voters. Retain 3.17 (c) (2) per RSA 674:21.
Charlie King – we already have authority to phase. We’ve been doing this.
Norm Russell – we decided to take out (c) (1) (c) - I would keep it in its entirety. Discussion.
Paul Parker agrees on taking out (c) (1) (c) out. Hiram Watson – no comment.
Paul Parker made motion to forward the Phased Development Ordinance 3.17 of Section 3.00 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance to the Special Town Meeting on November 18, 2004 for vote and return 3.17 (c) (2) a), b), c), d), e) & f) to the ordinance, Norm Russell 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
· Discussion on Zoning Ordinance being part of this meeting but was not included on the agenda. Norm Russell made a motion to continue the Zoning Ordinance amendments to the November 16, 2004 Planning Board Workshop meeting, Gerald White 2nd, motion carried.
· With no further business to discuss
Approved as written 10/02/2004
| 
