PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2004
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Norm Russell and Bob Talon
Absent: Hiram Watson and Don MacVane – (both called in absent)
Troy Robidas – (Absent no call)
Gerry “Gary” White (On leave of absence)
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Wendell Camp, Sr., Marlene Camp, Gregg Balser, Tony Alcorn – NewDam / Public, John Law – Bay Road / Public, Kristen Balser, Dennis & Carol Lepene, Larry Gaffney, Kevin Hogad, Warner Wise, Bill Tanguay, Attorney – McNeil, Taylor & Gallo - Dover, NH, Charlotte & Sandra Johnson – Bay Road / Abutter, Randy Orvis – Orvis & Drew for NewDam, Cathy & Bob Place, Richard Maloon – NewDam / Public, Bruce Cartwright – NewDam
Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:06p. m.
OLD BUSINESS:
Review and approve the meeting minutes of November 2. Bob Talon motions to accept the minutes as written, 2nd by Paul Parker, no discussion, motion passes.
Review and approve the meeting minutes of November 16. Norm Russell motions to accept the minutes as written, 2nd by Paul Parker, no discussion, motion passes. Chairman King makes note that a signature page is required, but approval of minutes passes.
Review and approve the meeting minutes of November 30. Norm Russell motions to accept the minutes as written, 2nd by Bob Talon, discussion by Norm Russell to make a few corrections; i.e. page 6, 7th line down Chestnut Hill Road should be Governors Road; page 9, 10th line down Park should be Parker; also line 27 should be changed to read Gary White asks if it’s possible for the selectmen to vote in for a short time? Paul Esswein does not believe that the selectmen can vote the ordinance in; line 34 remove Hiram 4-1. Chairman motions to accept the changes as amended, motion passes. Chairman King makes note that a signature page is required, but approval of minutes passes.
Chairman King asks for motion to move the previously continued items (1) Site Review Regulations for Amendment changes, (2) Zoning Ordinance Amendment changes and (3) Sub-Division Regulations for Amendment changes to the 4th of January Planning Board meeting, Bob Talon 2nd the motion. If there is not sufficient time for review and discussion of these 3 items, there’s the possibility to move these continued items to the January 18th Workshop meeting or add a meeting specifically to address these 3 articles.
NEW BUSINESS:
7:20 p.m. – 8:05 p.m.
Gerry Mylroie, Strafford Regional Planning Commission makes a presentation to the board showing their creation of a Zoning Map and on their vision for the future of the Town of Farmington that includes Base Zoning and Overlay Districts. This MAP allows you to see all zoning information on one map, as well as the zoning districts, well-head protection areas, shore land and aquifer overlay areas along the rivers. Street names have been updated to match with the E-911 system. He urges the board to act upon the acceptance of the MAP. Paul Esswein advises that revisions are to be made to the MAP and Norm Russell confirms that statement with a list that he comprised. Norm comments that it is not totally inclusive but it does cover a lot. Chairman King notes that this MAP is
accepted for review and the board will furnish back to Gerry Mylroie (in a timely manner) those changes. Paul Esswein will get those changes to Regional Planning and hopes that by the 1st of the year they (Regional Planning) will be able to return the MAP to us. Norm advises he is available to contact for clarifications if required. Gerry Mylroie references their WEB Site www.strafford.org that has all of the handouts and reference material that he discussed in this evenings meeting.
8:06 p.m.
Conceptual Review for 2-Lot Sub-Division by Donna Goslin, 154 Ten Rod Road (Tax Map R5, Lot 9).
Donna Goslin does her own presentation, as her surveyor did not show for the meeting, as she thought he was going to.
Chairman Charlie King recused himself, as he is a direct abutter to the property being presented and also a neighbor. Being that the Vice Chair is not in attendance, he advised that the most senior member of the board would preside over the meeting, which is Norm Russell.
Norm references the map, letter and a cover page to the septic design that each board member has for review. Donna Goslin indicates that they basically are asking for permission to sub-divide almost 10 acres into 2 lots. One is 5 +- acres and the other is 4 +- acres. She was told they best way to accomplish this is to create a hammerhead road as shown on the plans. This hammer head road plan would give each lot over 300 feet of frontage and allow them to sub-divide directly down the middle. It would also allow access for both lots, as each driveway will come off of the hammerhead road. Donna Goslin has spoken with Clark Hackett who has given her the specifications of what is needed to create this hammerhead road. Norms question whether the applicant is going to construct this
hammerhead road in accordance with specifications in our sub-division regulations? The applicant believes, as far as she knows. Norm explains that it is important for him to understand what it is she is presenting and the applicant counters with what is it that you need to know? Are you saying is it gravel or are you saying we need to do more than that? What are your specifications? Norm advises specifications say hot top. Norm directs the question back to applicant what it is she’s looking for. The applicant advises they’re looking at gravel but if it has to be hot top than that is what it will be and they will have to do it. What ever it is that they have to do to get this property sub-divided then they will do it. The discussions continue between Norm Russell and the applicant with regards to the road construction of hammerhead versus cul-de-sac with a 45-foot radius. Donna Goslin advised the board that this is what her surveyor had
recommended she do and that he assumed the board would accept his plan however, if the board wants something else done then they would agree to do it, she just needs to know what it is the board wants her to do. Norm explains the reason behind a cul-de-sac requirement versus a hammer head turn around, specifically in relation to snow removal. Donna questions the circle, she could understand if there was a large development going in but there are only 2 homes on the land, and they will be maintaining the road themselves. Discussions between Paul Parker and Norm Russell concerning the “private road” concept and the approval of a sub-division with such a road has been done all over. The private road scenario provides the required road frontage in sub-divisions and it is okay for the applicant to construct a private road. The question is “ whether or not we want to accept this configuration which is contrary to our sub-division regulations “?
Bob Talon understands “shared driveway” but it is actually a private road, the qualifying difference would be that it would be owned in common. The board does not object to the hammerhead configuration, but would like the applicant to look at a cul-de-sac and see if that would serve as well. If the board were to accept this type of configuration, Norm Russell would like to see it graveled out to the full width that our regulation asks for. Bob Talon comments that the issue is not what is going on today, but what might occur 50-100 years down the road when different individuals own both those lots and whom the responsibility for maintenance would fall under. Paul Parker still has quite a lot of reservations with this and needs to study a little bit more on this type of proposal. Norm advises that when the applicant makes their final presentation he would like to see test pits done on both lots, he sees that one is done already, the
applicant advises that the other has been done for many years and did not feel that it was needed, Norm quotes that under 4.07 of the regulations it specifically states that you do need to have test pits done even if it’s over 5 acres and this is one of the conditions that we will look for when you return with your final presentation. Norm also advises that the board would like to see the applicant provide engineering estimates of the cost of the improvements for constructing the road, whichever choice in road design; hammer head or cul-de-sac that the applicant chooses to go forward with. Also, the applicant needs to provide a statement to the affect of the 2 driveways coming off of the 1 newly created road since there is a requirement of 500 feet of frontage. Advise your engineer that the board also requires details on the drainage structures, construction specifications, erosion control and any other documentation that the engineer creates as
documentation on the newly created road and driveways. The board also requires some type of road maintenance agreement; it needs to be a legal binding agreement between 1 or more parties (whomever is going to assume the maintenance), outlining who will be maintaining this road in perpetuity. Paul Esswein believes there are a number of ways to accomplish the agreement, when the document is submitted we will have the Town of Farmington Attorney review. Paul Parker questions “the road construction itself”, he refers back to Norm’s comment about something larger than 14 feet, as the applicant originally indicated was appropriate after her conversations with the Town’s Highway Supervisor, Clark Hackett. Norm will not tell the applicant how to bring it forward, but if they bring it forward as a hammerhead turnaround, then from his point of view he would like to see it graveled out the full width as if it were a town road,
because of loss of area and having two 90º turns, but he’s not adverse at something less if it ends up at being a cul-de-sac. Norm also feels that a 14-foot width is still too narrow to service 2 homes, regardless of what Clark Hackett thinks. The applicant is still not sure of what the board wants and she wants to understand, Paul Parker summarizes what he believes Norm Russell is trying to present, particularly in relation to snow accumulation. Norm finalizes that the applicant will be coming back to the board with a proposal for road construction, and specifications that the applicant wants to employ and he reminds the applicant to also include an estimate of the costs of this construction, and in the estimate to also have an estimate written in for an as built drawing and have this included in the cost, this is for accountability purposes. Norm summarizes that the applicant must come back with the proposal, and the board will consider the
proposal, then determine if it is agreeable, then the notification to abutters are sent and a public hearing will be held on the sub-division. If the proposal comes back and it is anything less than a town accepted and approved road then the applicant will need to ask for a waiver of the total requirements. The engineer should be able to create such a waiver if one is needed.
Norm Russell advises at this point we will re-seat Chairman Charlie King (8:41p.m.) and he can begin again where he left off.
Paul Parker motions for a 5-minute recess, Norm Russell 2nd. No discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
8:50 p.m.
Chairman King calls the meeting back to order. Chairman King re-seats himself and thanks Norm Russell for presiding in the Chair’s absence in the absence of the Vice Chair.
Application for cluster sub-division, lot definition/set-back requirement revisions to the approved plan, by RSA Development, LLC (Tax Map U9, Lots #18 & 19 and Tax Map R34, Lots 1-8).
Bill Tanguay, Attorney from the firm of McNeil, Taylor and Gallo; Dover, NH, I am representing RSA Development, LLC and our request is very simple. One year ago the Planning Board approved a cluster plan for condo lots, we are here to ask you to revisit that plan, not with anything new. Now, RSA Development, LLC proposes to change from condo lots within a building envelope to fee simple lots. That is the only change to their original application, there is no new road, no new engineering, it is exactly the same layout as was before, and the only difference is the ownership of the units/lots. Attorney Tanguay expresses there is history to this project / proposal, their intention was not to revisit but only touch on the minimum lot size to be adjusted. The regulation at the time (1987) indicated
that the minimum requirements for setback and minimum requirements for frontage could be waived, but apparently there was some disagreement between the members of the board whether that meant the lot sizes themselves could be waived. It is pretty self-apparent that it can, if you can waive the setbacks and waive the frontage then inherent within that you could waive the minimum lot size, but you have come to a different conclusion. We have recently come across the minutes that date back to 1987 (copy attached) when cluster development regulations were first put into place. In these minutes it questions were asked about this very issue. In summary the minutes contained Randy Tetrault speaking as a member of the public asking if there was a minimum lot size for cluster and was told there wasn’t. Quoting from the minutes “The board wanted to leave the size open to negotiation”. Mr. Tetrault also stated that there are two views to this;
one is to make the ordinance very detailed and have people make certain specifications and the other is for flexibility. The answer he got was the board would be flexible. Purpose is to be creative and preserve open land as you can and to make neighborhoods work, the result is minimum lot size or smaller lot size other than you would originally have, which no one knows until the project comes before you. Attorney Tanguay continues with his presentation on behalf of RSA Development, LLC to ask the board for their reconsideration in changing the lots from condo to fee simple.
Paul Esswein presents his findings and written narrative of the proposed change in application. This is a 2 part issues – 1st part being the change in ownership; 2nd part being revision of setbacks within the project. With regard to the ownership issue, he has had discussions with the Town Attorney, Applicant and his own research and basically the department feels it doesn’t make any substantial change in the project itself. No land use change, just a change in ownership, lot lines stay the same, homes stay the same. He recommends that the Planning Board approve a change in ownership. The setback issue is different in that there were building envelopes presented on the original plat and that was understood to be the setback requirement. In fact those
building envelopes present a 25’ setback and 15’ read and side yard which is what the underlying zoning would require in this case. Paul Esswein continues with his discussion to the board detailing additional history of the application and setback requirements.
Chairman King now opens the meeting to the public in opposition of the plan:
Bob Place – He would like the board to take a look back at what we gave up so that Packy could get what he wants today. When he went to the cluster it seems he did that because he did not have enough land to get individual homes in. If we give him what he wants today, he’ll come back with wanting something more.
Chairman King now asks for the public to speak in favor of this plan:
Randy Orvis – Once you read the original Planning Board minutes that Attorney Tanguay’s representation is correct. And there is no minimum lot size, every cluster proposal under the old cluster regulation was on it’s own merits, only the density of the zone was said in the ordinance.
Chairman King closes the public portion of the hearing at this point 9:04 p.m. and open it for questions from the board to the applicant.
Bob Talon – Ownership is fully understandable. What is purpose / reason to come now to change the setback from what they were originally.
Packy Campbell summarizes that when they first brought the plan in it was fee simple lots for a 60 individual lots on 1 parcel, the intent of the cluster ordinance was met when we were pretty far down the road with 2 years into the planning with time and money spent, when an objection came up that maybe was legitimate at the time that said sorry Mr. Campbell we can’t vary the lot size, we love your plan, you’ve done all these things to preserve 30 acres of open space, you’ve protected our rivers, you’ve treated storm water, you’ve reclaimed the gravel pit, you’ve done some good things, you’ve worked with us, but sorry come back with something else. I reviewed the cluster subdivision regulations and it allowed condominiums and he said okay we can do 60 condominiums and that
is how they came up with it. It also answers the question about the building envelopes and plan, it is not a building envelope it is actually a legally defined condominium, rather than owning from the walls in you actually own from all four points on the ground. See page 8 of plan, it shows “proposed” envelope; the reason is “fee simple lots”, 25 15 25 setbacks for fee simple lots. Packy Campbell continues his discussion in defense of the proposed changes to the original plan.
Chairman King asks Bob Talon if his question has been answered by the response from Packy Campbell. Bob feels he went well around it. The question that he was looking for an answer too “is the setbacks that are being imposed making it impossible to develop the lots”? Packy responds with “not impossible” but making it difficult i.e., you can’t have a colonial with attached garage; you can’t have a ranch unless you put the gable end towards the road etc. You are basically left with a 40 x 30 ft area to build; the size of the house is limited. In a short answer it is impacting their ability to build.
Paul Parker – Letter refers to the cluster development ordinance. Paul assumes the letter relates to the old 1987 cluster, which actually is a regulation and not an ordinance. Paul also believes there is some confusion in the letter. In 1987 it was a regulation, what we have now is an ordinance. The difference is the ordinance you cannot waive requirements, with regulations you can. Are you trying to get relief from the old cluster or the new cluster? Packy entirely “old” regulation from beginning to end only uses the new ordinance as a frame of reference. Paul also asks if this is an approved application, Packy responds, yes it is. Under what regulation can you re-open an approved application? Packy states it’s done all the time,
sometimes tweaking does happen. Paul continues his discussion with applicant for clarity issues asking if there are currently homes built on the property, are the existing setbacks different than what you’re requesting now, how many of the homes have been completed. Packy Campbell states his case with Paul with regard to the setbacks being imposed by the Code Enforcement Office. He feels the Planning Board sat silently for 2 ? years into the setback requirements.
He continues his discussion in defense of the main objective being the setbacks.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein by our procedure do you feel that what the application is asking for that we have the ability as a board to weigh in on this application and consider these changes the applicant is requesting. Certainly on the 1st one he does. The other issue is a lot more complicated, theoretically he can request an amendment to his plat, however under current zoning, cluster subdivision zoning it does provide additional space to accomplish but there is also 1 provision that will limit the ability to develop a lot, now is 30-foot separating structures, under new ordinance it is 40-foot separation. Paul suggests if amending the plat to remove the building envelopes and specify a setback. 2nd question – Even though it was perceived at the inception based
upon the 1987 public hearing minutes, it was the intent of the Planning Board to have flexibility with regard to setback and so forth, Chairman King concerns are with the proposed building envelopes that are on the plan as we’ve had a very similar application to this, that it went to the ZBA for a variance and had a proposed building envelope to the Planning Board…I’ve shown my plan, 35 feet from the road to the ZBA and they gave me exception but no variance for the frontage requirement and if the Planning Board did not as part of the approval accept on the plan the reduced setback or as a contingency of the plan it was granting less than the zone, how could that plan be given a less setback, if it is not specifically listed on the design or as the motioned on the contingencies, wouldn’t if fall to the underlying zone. Paul Esswein responds with his interpretations and Chairman King and Paul continue their discussions.
Paul Parker – We continue discussions about “old cluster regulations” and “new cluster ordinance” and “condominiums”. This project was approved as a condominium and not as a cluster. NO by Norm Russell; it was a cluster condominium. Paul Esswein clarifies it was a cluster development with condominium ownership.
Additional discussions between Chairman King and Paul Esswein regarding his conservation with legal in regards to the setback requirements, amended plat requirements, the issue of variances and change in ownership based upon approval. More detailed questions by Chairman King to Paul Esswein in reference to the building envelopes.
Chairman King opens the discussion to the floor for final comment (9:35p.m.) for or against the applicants’ request, no comments to be heard, public portion now closed. Chairman King opens the discussion back to the applicant to speak and answer some of the questions that he heard. Attorney Tanguay has 2 quick comments; 1st The planner indicated that the plat requirement of the sub-division regulation requires that they show the setbacks, the plans that the board approved did not specify setbacks, there were none on the plan specified, there were envelopes 2nd tonight plan presented takes off the building envelopes, so the whole notion of removing the building envelopes is one to be taken into consideration. Packy Campbell briefly discusses the 15 10 10 showed on the plan, if the board
wants to go with 25 15 15 he is fine with that.
Chairman King closes discussion (9:40p.m.) and opens to discussions between the members of the board. Chairman King speaks, based upon our procedure the board needs to determine if this application is complete? Has the applicant furnished all the information that will be needed to make a judgment or at least consider the changes to this plat? Any motion or discussion? The applicant is asking for 2 changes (1) change condo to fee simple and (2) change to interpretation of setback as applies to his present plan.
Norm Russell believes the applicant has provided all the information as required in order to consider his request/application, Paul Parker 2nd that. Any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor; motion passes. The application is accepted as complete. Chairman King asks for any discussion on the “merits of the application”? Paul Parker asks if there are any legal issues that require a letter from our legal on some of the questions that were raised, Norm Russell thinks maybe specific questions, Paul Parker heard several questions, comments that Paul Esswein has answered most of them, still though is a formal legal letter be required, Paul Parker believes it wouldn’t hurt. Chairman King asks what his (Paul Parker) feeling is with regard to changing the
setback requirements, Paul Parker refers back to Attorney Tanguay statement and would feel comfortable with changing the setback however needs discussion. Norm Russell refers back to the “1987” minutes and there was a Public Hearing on cluster regulations and he agrees, that at the time their intent was to allow for flexibility in the regulation when reviewing clusters, the issue I have now and at the time of consideration is that is was a regulation and even though the Planning Board in 1987 gave themselves the authority to waive things like density, frontage, lot size and setbacks, the Zoning Ordinance does not give allowances for that. Norm Russell continues his discussion on the Zoning Ordinance and what would happen if we wrote regulations, his discussions also included the lot size requirement and where the “condo” idea came from, i.e. one limited development area and within that area 60 condominium units not lots….they were units. The rational behind allowance of
condominium unit is 1 limited common area, as indicated on the drawing (sheet 2 of 4 for recording), which lays out the metes and bounds of the entire limited common area. So it was allowed that the condominium subdivision be on 1 lot and within that 1 lot all 60 condominium lots were laid out meeting those metes and bounds. Norm feels the change to be 1 lot into 60 lots in reference to the “lot issue”. He’s reviewed and noted on the approved plan (prior to plan approval 11/2003) one note states “note 3 page 4 & 5 no further subdivision for buildable lots shall occur on this property” what it used to end with “unless approved by the Planning Board” a motion to remove that from the plan by the Planning Board and it was taken off. Norm feels that by allowing this to be fee simple lots, that we are creating 60 fee simple lots as opposed to 1 lot now. As for the proposed setback under the open
space cluster development at present has a purpose and objective that the previous ordinance would not comply with. He doesn’t feel it’s appropriate at this time to go with the proposed setback, but does not have a problem in changing building envelopes to setbacks, he feels that would be reasonable and the applicant was entitled that for his projection of porches and overhangs and those such things.
Chairman King summarizes Norm Russell’s concern – That being the change from condominium to fee simple. Review and formal opinion by legal to address Norm Russell’s concern is merited. Legal meaning the Town of Farmington legal counsel.
Chairman King notes that it is 9:55p.m. with 1 applicant still waiting and asks the members of the board (1) consider and accept this plan as complete,
(2) we could consider and vote on it tonight
(3) we could ask legal and planning to addressing some of the concerns that were brought up tonight
(4) continue this meeting to a later date
(5) make a motion and vote on it now
Chairman King asks Packy Campbell based on the above what would your preference be? Packy Campbell states based on Mr. Russell’s comments he’s not sure… but would feel more comfortable with clearer communication and agrees with providing more detail from the Towns’ legal counsel and coming back before a full Planning Board as there are only 4 members this evening and maybe with the 6 or 7 members it would be a better decision.
Paul Parker motions to continue to the next Planning Board meeting of January 4, 2005 with legal counsel input and Planning Review, Bob Talon 2nd the motion for continuation to the January 4, 2005 meeting, any further discussion? Yes by Norm Russell; he would like to make a friendly amendment to be more specific and have Attorney clarify and interpret their opinion specifically in relation to Note 3.
Chairman King summarizes: Review of minute’s previous legal counsel information
Plat notes regarding Note 3
Creation of non-conforming lots
Change of condo to fee simple
Comment regarding consideration of changing building envelopes to building setback.
Chairman King asks if Norm Russell’s friendly amendment is accepted Paul Parker accepts, Bob Talon 2nd, Chairman King asks for any final discussion on the continuation of the meeting to January 4, 2005, no further discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King notes it is now 10:00p.m. and thanks the last applicant for their patience. He asks, be that it is 10:00p.m. would you like to continue at this point? The applicant’s agrees to continue.
Chairman King notes a motion to continue must be made, Norm Russell motions to continue, Paul Parker 2nd, any time, no time determined, motion passes.
Application for 14-Lot Sub-Division, Phase I, For a portion of Tax Map R60, Lot 18 by NewDam, a LLP Partnership.
Randy Orvis presenting on behalf of NewDam Partnership, recaps their previous meeting of 1 month ago, which was the initial consultation on how they would proceed, and states now they are back before the board with a formal application for the 1st phase of the cluster sub-division. Now before the board to ask for preliminary acceptance from the board and also to request a special use permit, to allow cluster sub-division, which he believes, is part of the procedure. Copies of the survey and NewDam holding have been provided along with copies of the 1st phase and believe you have a copy of the density calculations that were previously given to the board. Randy Orvis recaps the details of the density projections.
Tony Alcorn opens his presentation with their main concern being their previous presentations on the phased development and he believes that concept is acceptable by the board. They understand the new cluster development zoning and believe they are at the paragraph 6 point. Yield calculations have been discussed with Paul Esswein. They were then directed to speak with TRC, which they did (actually 2 meetings) the focus was primarily on the proposed Cistern implementation and explains fire systems for fire protection (discussions held at TRC Meeting of December 2nd copies enclosed for review and reference). Their next step is to get permission to submit a final plat to the Planning Board for review and also require the need for approval of their special request and also note that 105
acres are being set aside for conservation land, previously they presented the common land design taking in both sides of the river as well as some other wetlands which we know has wildlife migration. The plan shows 115 lots, however after all the roads are in place and the set asides counted they may only end up with 112. The ordinance calls for who the land will be conveyed to and what the mechanism may be, their preference being the Town of Farmington. They are also going to ask for compensation in a fashion for exchange for the 105 acres of land, which we be “asking for a waiver” for current use aspect. This follows the precedence set as across the street at Cherub Estates. NewDam is looking at 130 acres of current use, the exchange would roughly involve 1 acre of conservation land for 1 building lot to be taken out of common use.
Chairman King asks if Paul Esswein has any comments now? Comments on the extensive discussions that he’s had with NewDam concerning the fire protection issues and feel that we are progressing towards a resolution and establishing a standard for all developments in the Town of Farmington. Paul Esswein did state that he made a site walk inspection of the proposed sub division property and stated “although I am not a soil scientist I have had some experience looking at wetlands” and he noticed a few areas that were not included on the delineation that was provided by the applicant and also noted that the delineation was done in October 2001 and according to weather records, that was a fairly dry year which could have some effect on the indications that were present at that time, I’ve marked out
a number of areas that I feel warrant some additional review and think that it might be advisable to hire a scientist to review what Randy Orvis plans show with respect to the wetlands area. That is the only major concern, recommendation that the Planning Board accept the application as complete, there are a few gaps concerning the legal documents on designation of open space. The understanding has to be that the board may set additional requirements as the review goes along as is clearly stated in the ordinance giving the board that authority, that consideration of the final plat be contingent upon all outstanding minimum requirements being met, specifically the issue concerning the designation of open space boundaries and submission of legal instrument acceptable to the Town of Farmington concerning conservation goals for the open space, also recommend the applicant be directed to prepare detailed development assessments for lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 addressing access slopes,
wetlands and limitations of seasonal high water tables. Staff also recommends that the Town of Farmington take an independent review of the wetland delineation issue. Paul Esswein agrees to work with Randy Orvis to review the wetlands and if the review is not satisfactory then an outside scientist will be hired.
Chairman King asks the members of the board if they have questions. Bob Talon, none. Norm Russell asks are they looking for a conditional acceptance of the plan? Paul Esswein – his understanding is that they would like to have the application accepted and authority to move ahead to the next stage, which is presentation of their final plat. Norm asks if we are considering this as a preliminary? Chairman King, no this is a formal application for Phase I. Norm asks if more information/detail will be given. Randy Orvis says if there is more detail to be given he certainly will, however he believes they have submitted all the detail that was required. Norm does agree with that statement. Norm reads from Paragraph 6 – approval of applications and continues with his opinions of the proposed
application requirements posing questions about the utilities existing and new services that will be required. Tony Alcorn comments that they have not gotten that far into the planning. Norm suggests they add this requirement to their investigations of the placement of the utilities. Norm questions the provisions of adding sidewalks down the cemetery side. Tony Alcorn responds due to the stone wall that runs along the front of the property that there would not be sufficient room for a safe sidewalk for major parts of the area and it would probably have to be put on the inside of the stone wall. Norm agrees with the inside sidewalk, Tony advises it could also serve Cherub Estates. Tony questions why the sidewalks stop at a certain point and do not go all the way into downtown. Chairman King is pleased with the progress the Partnership is making, however he has concerns that will need to be formalized; common land agreement which needs to be in place
before any approval can be given on a 1st phase, agreement on how the land is to be dispositioned whether in portion or complete. Also, want to make clear that while your coming in and applying for all the exceptions and the bonuses and pluses of the cluster, that if the final 2 phases do not get built out for whatever reason, that the land still gets set aside as it should be. Tony Alcorn asks if he can read back his interpretation of Chairman Kings thoughts “There has to be a firm agreement of some type or another where this 105 acres or more is designated in terms of who is going to own it in the future, who it’s going to be conveyed to, and furthermore need to engage with the Selectmen to reach a decision on this proposal and they need to agree that this is something the Town of Farmington wants to do”. Tony Alcorn and Chairman King throw around various ideas on the issue of the 105 acres when, where and how it will be passed over to the
Town of Farmington. Norm has a question about the “common access points” (shared driveways). Continued dialect between Randy Orvis, Richard Maloon and Norm on these “common access points” and would like the applicant to look at these as added options. Paul Parker enters into the discussion on the “common access points” questioning the possibility of adding a road through the back of the proposed development.
Chairman King summarizes:
(1) Review the driveway placements; i.e. shared or side by side
(2) Delineation for proposed utilities
(3) Add to plan the 2 above items
(4) Sidewalks and if the applicant can find a working mechanism
(5) Mechanism for common land dedication that would be acceptable in phase or in whole
(6) Paul Esswein outside services - but taken care with a meeting between himself and Randy Orvis to re-walk the parcels and come to a meeting of the minds so to speak…if Paul Esswein is not 100% convinced then an outside wetlands scientists will be hired.
(7) Applicant to pay for additional services
Chairman King asks for any motion, Paul Parker motions to continue this hearing to the January 4, 2005 Planning Board meeting. Norm Russell, we must postpone the motion, public has not had time to speak, due to the late hour 10:58p.m. A couple of quick questions will be allowed from the public.
Warner Wise – 2 quick questions
Dennis LaPenne – questions on the shaded area, designated roadways, set-a-side for town requirements
John Law – Has ? hour presentation, the board will not stay for that he will need to come back to the January 4th meeting.
Motion to continue this application to the January 4, 2005 meeting, Paul Parker makes motion, 2nd by Bob Talon. Motion to adjourn Bob Talon, 2nd Paul Parker, all in favor; motion passes, meeting adjourned 11:10p.m.
Approved as written with minor changes noted in bold (see pg 5, 2nd line; pg 7, line 22 & line 24).
| 
