PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Norm Russell, and Hiram Watson
Absent: Don MacVane Troy Robidas– (both called in absent)
Gerry “Gary” White (On leave of absence)
Robert Talon
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Pauline Scruton, Ruth Scruton-AFC Representative, Mary Ellen Silver, Jeff Popek, Christina Popek, Charles & Linda Currier, Laurie Palmer, Nancy Varney, Richard Maloon-NewDam, LLP, Bruce Cartwright-NewDam, LLP, John Law, Alicia Sprague, Randy Orvis-For NewDam, LLP, Kevin Hogan, Cyndi Paulin-ZAMPS,
Chairman King called a non-public session to order at 6:10p.m.
This meeting was attended by the members present (referenced above) from the Planning Board, Paul Esswein and Doreen T. Hayden as staff and Tim Bates from Mitchell and Bates Law Firm. The Planning Board members had asked for this meeting to allow them questions and answers from the Town of Farmington’s Attorney Tim Bates with regard to the Cluster Development Regulation and a particular application and the adopted rules that were in effect in 1987 and the applicability of those rules now that an application in the year 2001 came before the board for consideration and approval as well as a 11/2002 cluster development repeal and ultimate approval in 11/2003 and the passed cluster development ordinance of 2004.
This part of the meeting ended at 7:03p.m.
Chairman Charlie King calls the meeting to order at 7:10p.m. Seated tonight Hiram Watson, Norm Russell, Chair Charlie King and Paul Parker, Selectman’s Rep., absent this evening Don MacVane and Troy Robidas, Gerry “Gary” White (On leave of absence)
OLD BUSINESS:
Review and approve the minutes of December 21, 2004. Paul Parker made motion to approve the minutes as written, 2nd by Norm Russell, discussion by Norm Russell to make a few minor changes as follows: At page 5, 2nd line change Pike to Place; pg 7, line 22 add the word to, & line 24 add the numeric 60. Chairman King asks for any other changes to the minutes, Hiram Watson abstains previously absent, Chair asks all those in favor Paul Parker, Norm Russell and Chairman Charlie King approve as amended, motion passes to accept the minutes as amended.
NEW BUSINESS:
A request from Maria & Keith Schloesser: To consider their proposal as an administrative review to rent the 3rd unit in their preexisting multi-family home. (Tax Map U9, Lot 004) Cornered at Lone Star and Civic Streets.
Paul Esswein presents on behalf of the Schloesser’s requesting the administrative approval by the Planning Board be granted. Paul gives an overview of what the Schloesser’s are requesting approval of. The change they’d like to make does not affect the footprint of the building. Paul reads from the Site Review Regulations where the planning board does have the authority to consider a minor application and have the plan reviewed by the board. The department suggested that rather than the applicant going through the complete process that perhaps their application could be reviewed under that section of the Site Review Regulations. Chairman King polls each member for question, Hiram Watson-none, Norm Russell-to be clear these changes are to occur within an existing structure;
correct-Paul Esswein, Norm Russell-no further questions, Paul Parker-has this been done before, a new concept or procedure; not new in the Site Plan Review Regulations-Paul Esswein; Paul Parker asks what page that is located on, Paul Esswein – section 3.02 determination paragraph D “quoted” (see attached). Chairman King asks if this is a notice of public hearing regarding this application; yes-Paul Esswein, Chairman King-abutters have been properly noticed; Paul Esswein this is only a request for acceptability to allow the existing 3rd unit to be rented, this is a public meeting and does not require abutter notification. Chairman King opens this to general discussion. Norm Russell-information provided shows sufficient square footage and parking spaces and the applicant is not adding on to the structure and feels this should be allowed as an administrative approval, Paul Parker agrees with Norm. Norm Russell motions to approve proposal
as an administrative review to renovate and rent the 3rd unit from the existing multi-family home, 2nd by Paul Parker, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes unanimously.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO TOWN OF FARMINGTON FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE:
Paul Esswein believes that this presentation of the Flood Plain Development Ordinance could actually be presented under the Zoning Ordinance changes at the end of this meeting. Basically it is just a change in the language of the 1st paragraph of the Flood Plain Regulations, which changes reference of the Maps. There will be new Maps adopted by FEMA on May 15, 2005 and because it is a change in the Zoning Ordinance this must be included in our consideration of the ordinance. The basic contents “Effective May 15, 2005 the revised Maps dated (whatever those dates are) will be the reference for Flood Plain Consideration. Chairman King makes a motion to continue this consideration/discussion of the Flood Plain Development Ordinance to later in the meeting while the Zoning Ordinances
are being discussed, 2nd by Norm Russell, any discussion, no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chairman King states we have an opportunity for new business before the board and he realizes the members from the public are in the audience to speak on the proposed Critical Lands Overlay District and 1st the discussion will be open to the members of the Planning Board for any new business. Hiram Watson comments that there should be some discussion by the public on the Overlay. Norm Russell – comments about the Critical Lands Overlay District that has been proposed and forwarded for a special town meeting, he attended a Selectman’s meeting 1 week ago this past Monday and there were many members of the public in attendance that looked to discuss the elements of the overlay, they were concerned with this and wanted to add their input. The Selectmen at the time were just considering the
Planning Boards previous referral to have the meeting scheduled for public hearing, he feels that due to the immense interest and concerns of the public who were not present for the previous public hearings it might be appropriate to rescind the request for a special hearing or request that the Selectmen consider the request to rescind the special town meeting and reschedule for further consideration and public comment in the form of a workshop meeting to inform the public and garner additional input for consideration to be worked into the proposed overlay. Paul Parker does have some thoughts, but would like to hear comments from the public and then have the ability to add his comments. Hiram Watson-No, but comments that he has been approached by a number of people in the area especially the landowners in the Meaderboro Road area, as you know he voted no originally and still stands on that. There are a lot of reasons; 1 being he does not believe the people were
notified properly, and he recommended from the very beginning that each land owner that it effects be notified and I was out voted, comments made that the Town of Farmington would be setting a precedence if they notify each land owner, he understands a little public notice was entered into the Newspaper, however not all residents read the paper and they are not getting properly heard.
Chairman King states at this point he will open the floor for public comment for a “very brief” 10-15 minute comment on the proposed consideration by Norm Russell to rescind the CLOD meeting; the reason for a time limitation is that the Planning Board does have regularly scheduled public hearing meetings which the applicants are here for and it is not fair to extend into their time slot.
Mary Ellen Silver – She is affected by this overlay, she thinks this writing is very general in nature and feels that the Town of Farmington should have set a precedence and notified each effected landowner. A small notice was put in the paper at Christmas Time she’s sorry she missed it and wishes she had seen it, she would have gone, if she were notified she would have been there. The Town of Farmington notifies abutters for different little things like apartments and stuff and feels she should have been notified. Her farm ponds are effected “natural habitat corridor”. The information she received from the Town Hall was if she doesn’t have animals on her land for 6 months – 1 year; that she will have to come before the Planning Board and ask permission to get
animals on her property, which is a special permit, would she have to pay for it? Does she have to go to the farm and ask what impact her animals are going to have on the land? She quotes a statement from the CLOD narrative that pertains to “lands” she does not know what that means?
Chairman King explains briefly, that he realizes when this was initially posted that there were some concerns/misunderstandings on how this should be applied and basically all considerations of water bodies should be based upon (at least this boards opinion) the definition of our zoning ordinance which states that a defined water body is a water body of 5 acres or more containing open water or a stream or river which runs on average 12 months of the year.
Dave Casner – I live out on Sheepboro Road and probably a lot of the reason these people are here are on my notification. In reference to the motion that Mr. Russell made, I would agree with him, that this needs to be tabled for far more work and/or let it die. The words that are written here have a tremendous amount of ambiguity, this is vastly affecting 500 land owners out in the Western portion and I am afraid that this is going to be adverse to their lives and properties.
Kevin Hogan – His home is 100% in zone. He is in the process of building a house, which is right in the middle of this zone. If it isn’t tabled and goes through, how does it affect me? I have a 2-acre lot and grow Christmas Trees, I have no plans to subdivide now or in the future but I should be allowed it is my right.
Ruth Scruton – Farm Service Representative for Strafford County – In discussion at their meeting today they were quite disturbed with the removal of the word agriculture. It was in and then removed. Christmas Tree farming or Tree Farming wasn’t going to be allowed in this corridor. It appears that only 1 form of farming is being chosen and there are many inconsistencies within that document. She thinks these inconsistencies need to be reviewed and discussed before being put to town vote and she personally feels that sheep farming is more ecologically sound than tree farming, but she is for all farming in this area and just feels that the board did not consider all farming when they took out the word agricultural.
Chairman King agrees that it was taken out during public comment based upon some issues that were presented, however the elimination of that and inclusion of some additional restrictions to alleviate those concerns have caused some of the problem.
Ruth Scruton – adds that USDA and Farm Services already are controlling the farmers over there enough. They are restricted in how much they can take off a hillside to protect erosion of property, restrictions with licensing of chemical sprays when and where, they have plenty of restrictions as far as the farming community versus the residential areas, which they can go down to the local store and mix up any chemical and dump it around and not get fined, but the farming community would not dare try it. In closing she feels that the Town of Farmington should be very pleased with the stewards of Meaderboro Road and how nice these properties are.
Nancy Varney – Her deed says she can farm, and she can build buildings in the farm atmosphere. She went to a Town of Farmington meeting for the Master Plan and in that Master Plan it was said that deeds overrule any zoning, per Mr. Barron. She questions if the board has looked at all the deeds? Chairman King states that he is not a legal expert but believes that interpretation would have a lot of discussion and not sure that would be the case and would consult with legal counsel. She further comments on the amount of money she pays in grain and the costs of her tractors to farm the land and that everything she raises she lives on and if she didn’t she would not be able to afford her taxes.
Chairman King now allows 1 more person from the public to speak before we go into the Public Hearing portion of this meeting.
Lori Palmer – The sad part of this whole thing, is we farmed in New York for many years and came back to this area and to think that New Hampshire use to be a very agricultural orientated state of a dying breed. She has 3 children that compete at various levels in breed cattle; they buy and sell cattle across the country. She believes that the wildlife and agriculture can work together.
Chairman King by working on the sub-committee he knows that the intent was not to be restrictive and limit the expansions or continued use of agricultural uses in those particular zones and he feels based upon the face document and how it could be interpreted and how it should be interpreted and what the intent is that is why there is consideration at this point to withdraw.
Chairman King closes the public comment portion of this meeting (7:45p.m.) for further discussion on the consideration of Selectmen to withdraw the special town meeting to allow additional workshop meetings that will be noticed.
Paul Parker comments that they received this proposal from the professional planners that they employed to re-do the Master Plan and they developed the CLOD, the original plan they came up with the Board was not comfortable with and asked the sub-committee to review and see what they could do to make it better, the sub-committee looked at, held a couple public hearings, the planning board had a couple public hearings during those times, some public did voice their opinions/concerns and the planning board tried to incorporate all those suggestions, the board was very adamant in trying to protect land owners rights, the last think the board wanted to do was to de-valuate property or put any undue hardships upon any landowner. He feels there has been a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of questions and concerns and this
was not the boards’ intentions. He supports Norm Russell motion. He would hope that the people / land owners make an attempt to attend some of the sub-committee meetings and let your views and concerns be know, the board would welcome all the input and it is a definite help to the board when the public does attend and gives their input.
Hiram Watson – Belongs to the committee that Paul Parker mentioned and does not like the way the committee is run. A small group of individual’s works on it and the public does not always get to hear about issues. Hiram stated these meetings should be posted, Paul Parker advises that it is regularly posted, Hiram responds with the little ad in the paper. He believes that the board should invite the landowners that are effected, Paul Parker comments “this is your invitation, please come”, Hiram believes that we should take greater effort in notifying land owners, a small ad in the paper is not enough and not all people read the paper. Chairman King, as previously discussed and your opinion on this matter voiced, the state law does not require and towns that make zoning changes
throughout the whole town, go through and publicly notice in writing each landowner. Chairman King does not disagree with Hiram Watson, just that in an ideal world that would be great however, the fact is the board does go out of its’ way to adhere to all the legal posting requirements and when in doubt re-notify.
Chairman King turns the floor over to Norm Russell to have a formal motion. Before he motions he would like to make a couple of comments with regard to Hiram Watson concern, that being modern day land owners need to recognize that land use boards change regulations and ordinances all the time. In the form that they are prescribed, authorization is the way that they have performed, he states that the board has gone overboard in the noticing, he certainly believes that it could be improved, but that is for another discussion. Norm Russell motions to ask the Board of Selectmen to remind the Special Town meeting and that the Planning Board will take this up at a workshop meeting (to be scheduled) and would appreciate the public to return to give their input and achieve the goals and have the landowners
comfortable with those decisions. Chairman King asks if Norm Russell would like to put a date to that meeting, he would have to consult the board and see where the schedule is, 2nd by Hiram Watson, any discussion, Hiram Watson makes a friendly amendment to allow sign-up sheet to have the public notified by letter in a standard letter format to set a precedence in this town. Norm Russell further adds that the people that have signed in tonight, to add their address to this evenings attendance sign-in sheet. Hiram agrees and Norms accepts this friendly amendment suggestion. Paul Parker has some concerns with setting this type of precedence; he does think there are improvements to be made and other alternatives. Paul advises the public that they can register on the Town of Farmington WEB site to have notices sent to their email addresses. Hiram Watson amended his own motion, Norm Russell 2nd the amendment, Chairman King summarizes – we have an amended motion, which is to request
the selectmen to remove this and not hold special town meeting regarding the overlay and to remand it back to work shop meetings which will allow the people that sign up to be notified by a standard mailing when those workshops meetings will be, any final discussion, Paul Parker supports the motion, but not sure about the ways to do it, Hiram Watson believes the small amount of money it costs for notification is not a major issue and we should be taking care of the people, Chairman King thinks in this case it is a reasonable request for notification, it is his opinion that it was not the intent to restrict or exclude agriculture based upon the public input that was gathered and the changes made, or how it reads and has the potential interpretation if it is not applied correctly it could be perceived as a restriction, so based upon that he is in favor of continuing to work on the CLOD until it is acceptable to the community if that’s possible. Any final discussion, no
final discussion, all those in favor as amended, motion passes, unanimously. A letter in writing will be forwarded to the Selectmen requesting this be remanded back to a workshop meeting, which will be noticed in the paper, in the Towns posting area and for anyone that signs up.
Hiram Watson makes a motion for a 5 minute recess to allow the public to sign up for mailing notification, and
Chairman King would like to make a motion for a different recess, motion to go into a non-public session based upon RSA 91-A: 3-C discussion of a procedural matter regarding the Technical Review Committee, 2nd by Hiram Watson, any discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
8:06 p.m. break
Non-public session held in the Planning Department to discuss the procedures of the Technical Review Committee and to read a letter written by Planning Board Chairman Charlie King outlining his concerns of the TRC and how they conduct their meetings and disseminate information to potential applicants. Chairman Kings asks the board members present 3 things; 1) not to send the letter, 2) send as board members letter or 3) send as an individual. Chairman King does not disagree with helping the Town of Farmington applicants, just feels that the TRC members give too much direction to potential applicants. This meeting centered on a specific ZBA appeal recommended from the TRC committee. Norm Russell agrees with the letter written and would like to see the Town Administrator be more understanding where
the Planning Board is concerned, and would like to see the TRC rules and procedures for which they operate under, Paul Esswein comments there are none. Chairman King feels that the Town of Farmington is not consistent in their policies. Hiram Watson does not agree with the letter. Norm Russell wants to make a motion to forward the letter to the Town Administrator, 2nd by Paul Parker, any discussion, Hiram Watson thinks that we need a full board to make this determination, no further discussion, 3 in favor, 1 against (Hiram Watson), motion passes. Non-public session ends at 8:28 p.m.
8:30 p.m. back to Public Hearing
Continuation of review for 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).
Attorney Jim Shannon is filling in for Attorney Tanguay as he is at a wake. Attorney Shannon discusses the road maintenance agreement as proposed for the homeowners association, which includes the common area interests. The water, sewer and pumping are all things that presently belong to common area use will remain. Homeowners association would own all utilities. Chairman King summarizes that there are no proposed change to the ownership or difference from the approval plan with regard to the infrastructure; this is just a proposed document of how it will be managed.
8:35p.m.
Chairman King opens questions to applicant from board, Norm Russell interested in the condominium association and what is it they do? Attorney Shannon replies that there are recorded declarations of the bylaws of the condominium association and some can be very explicit and this particular condominium defines the four corners on the ground and is not as restrictive as a typical declaration of bylaws for those types of covenants and restrictions, Packy Campbell adds to Attorney Shannon’s explanation of the condominiums declarations and bylaws and also points out that he is against invoking restrictions. There are 7 homeowners that have signed a document acknowledging the change from condominium to fee simple lots. Discussions continue between the Planning Board Members, Packy Campbell and Attorney
Jim Shannon about the homeowner’s associations’ covenants and relating to its contents, which can make the changes or add requirements and the rights of a condo association. Chairman King questions Packy Campbell regarding the proposed changes and signature approval. Attorney Jim Shannon speaks on regards to the dissolution of the condo association. Discussions between Norm Russell, Packy Campbell and Attorney Shannon continue to further elaborate on the conditions of the homeowners association / condominium association and covenant rights and what is and is not allowed in the development.
Chairman King has a couple of items for clarification; Mr. Campbell you stated that the individuals who have already bought in this development bought in under the condo association and have (I’ll make the assumption) signed the document that they are in agreement to this change or just giving you a verbal agreement. Packy Campbell states that his buyers has signed them and he has had realtors in his office to deal with these, he would have to check his files to confirm the dates, so he can not say, yes I have 7 sales and 7 signatures on file, he believes he does. Chairman Kings 2nd question – Even if we were to grant the proposal he would have to be granted a dissolution of the condo association by the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire- Packy Campbell – right.
Chairman Kings concern is that if we were to grant an approval contingent upon Packy Campbell receiving the approval from the Attorney General Office and it is Chairman Kings feeling that he would have to have signed agreements of all the existing land owners that they receive the final proposals of any change in association rights and restrictions. Attorney Shannon did this same exact termination 6 or 7 years ago under a condo association in Rochester called “Rivers Edge Estates – Gonic”. It is part of the law 356B governs how to dissolve a condominium association and all the requirements. Paul Parker – where are you currently in your project – Attorney Shannon Phase I is approved and under construction and the road is in whatever has not been completed has been bonded Phase I is fully up and running, Phase II has not been open yet. Packy Campbell comments that they are getting building permits every day and building and
selling houses, have I had any problems-no, I have all my approvals from the State Attorney Generals Office, from NH DES, DOT we are meeting all our requirements, have had meetings with the conservation commission. Chairman King ask where Mr. Campbell stands with the start of Phase II? Packy Campbell states that some of the infrastructure has been started, drainage line installed, some underground sewerage, stubs are in, land where the road is has been grubbed out, realistically he is trying to get a date from Pike on there anticipated start date, hoping for March, but more realistically looks like May. Cannot sell units in Phase II until they apply for the additional units through the Attorney General Approves. The Attorney General gave approval to sell 37 units, now in order to sell unit 38 a letter must be sent stating they are ready to start Phase II. Chairman King follows on with the conversation about the bonds that will be required to put up for the
infrastructure, which they are not at a point for Phase II; they did the bond for Phase I. Packy Campbell states that a bond will have to be posted when they want to sell house in Phase II. If he wants a building permit in Phase II, any infrastructure that wasn’t completed would have to be bonded so that they can then get building permits for Phase II. Chairman King follows up with comments regarding the previous application and the common area clarification where there was a large area planned to be removed and have a ball field / grassy area put in, is that still on for implementation at the start of Phase II. Packy Campbell replies that there is not a date set aside for this enhancement. Discussions continue about the options for the “large area” proposals.
Hiram Watson requests clarification on the bond issue, doesn’t it just roll from Phase I to Phase II. Packy Campbell advises Hiram that it is up to the Selectman for the bonding agreement. The next question relates to the sidewalk issue on Elm Street from roadway up to Elm Street. Lone Star Avenue, engineer approval says on the right if it was feasibly possible as there is a 50ft right of way, after their review it was determined there was not enough room. Installed on the left side with pavement and then one of the homeowners planted trees in the 50ft right of way and addressed this issue with the homeowner telling them that the sidewalk was going to right through their bushes and then some hullabaloo happened and he had the sidewalk ripped out and awaiting further instructions from the Town on
how to proceed. I wish that this board would direct me to install it where it is, rip it out entirely, pave it into the existing road; there are all kinds of solution that could be done.
Chairman King – the application is in 2 requests: 1st is for basically changing of ownership to fee simple lots and the 2nd is for relief from the setback “building envelopes” as the plan was presented and approved. Chairman King believes based upon our last meeting it appears that the applicant is comfortable with the boards consideration of only being held to the setbacks of the underlying zone allowing you to build into the setback, Packy Campbell states the foundation would be 25 15 15 not necessarily the front steps or the back deck. Chairman King and Packy Campbell continue their discussion about the previous and present setbacks and what code enforcements interpretations were at the time. Paul Parker states that he is in agreement with Chairman King and that they
have been advised by legal they have the right to amend the original plan approval and he would support the approval of the setback of the underlying zone 25 15 25 to reduce it would probably apply the current cluster zone and if we were to apply any of the current cluster zone regulation we would have to have an application and review the whole thing under that ordinance and I’m not so sure that he (Packy) wants to open up the whole thing, I think you’re just looking to get it amended and get relief of the setback from the building envelopes which I feel the board can do, he would feel comfortable with that. Continued discussions with the applicant and the members of the board about the rules of the application and current zoning that is in place now, versus in the year 1987 and continuation of various setback requirements.
Chairman King breaks from his past tradition based upon legal review and make a motion regarding this application, although 1st I’ll open the floor to any member of the public who wants to speak either for or against this application; no members wishing to speak – Attorney Shannon asks for 1 minute break so that he may confer with Attorney Tanguay who just came in. Chairman King makes a motion to (first lets get to the application) the application is for a lot definition set back requirement revisions and also to change the ownership from condo to fee simple lots, Chairman King motions to approve fee simple lot ownership which is contingent upon Attorney General approval of the dissolution as required by state law and approval of town council regarding review home owners association documents
and any covenants with deed restrictions with the emphasis to be consistent with the current excepted plan, meaning they were proposed condo documentation and restrictions that legal reviewed to insure that they are in-fact consistent. On the 2nd part of the application for lot definition set back, my motion is to have the plan amended to show lot setbacks of the underlying zone, those being 25 15 25. Norm Russell is not sure and does not believe that we specify a rear setback requirement in the SR zone. The motion is for the plan to be revised to show building setback of the applicable underlying zone, all of that is to be interpreted by the Code Enforcement Officer. The other contingency is the compliance of the sidewalk is a requirement to be part of the infrastructure or to bond that infrastructure that is not completed and the mechanism to determine the final design of the infrastructure which is in question regarding the sidewalk is to be
determined by the Technical Review Committee and the Town Planner, meaning this board will delegate your requirement of compliance to the TRC as far as you and the TRC coming to a suitable resolution and your approval will be contingent upon the implementation of the infrastructure or the bonding of such. 2nd by Hiram Watson, any final discussion, all those in favor, motion passes. 9:30 p.m.
Continuation of review for application for 14-Lot Sub-Division, Phase I, For a portion of Tax Map R60, Lot 18 by NewDam, a LLP partnership.
Richard Maloon, Bruce Cartwright; Tony Alcorn – Absent; Randy Orvis – Orvis & Drew
Continuation from previous Planning Board Meetings now presenting the 7 action items as requested, by Richard Maloon:
1) By March 2005 to get approval of the 14 lots
2) Review placement of driveways, not common driveways, 1 entrance to 2 driveways
3) Utilities – agree underground where possible
4) Sidewalk – not recommending, unless being forced – paths are there envision
5) Common Land – recommend conveying a certain part of land; open space – conservation land; easement 104 acres of conservation easement = 14 acre to 14 lots and then convey to Town of Farmington
6) Conveying 104 acre not being obliged to collect a current use fee – and they made the proposal to the selectman and they are thinking about that.
7) Review of wetlands – Paul Esswein and Randy Orvis have agreed to walk the proposed development.
Richard Maloon believes the next step for them is to try and get a final plat to the Planning Board.
Randy Orvis will talk about 3 specific items; those being (1) shared driveways, (2) conservation land (3) concern about 1 road placement – on the conceptual design it now shows the road coming in by the Waldron Grave site is, and this is still in our proposal as the overall phase, which has an indirect approval of the 14 lots.
Randy Orvis – Lots 12 & 13 common driveway – Trees might need to be cut and bank cut for visibility, some lots cannot have common driveways, Lots 11 & 10 separate driveways, Lot 14 will be off of the future proposed road same with Lots 6 & 7, Lots 8 & 9 will have common driveways, Lots 4 & 5 common driveway and Lots 2 & 3 or 1 & 2 one of these lots will have their own driveway; it could also be that Lots 2 & 3 or Lots 1 & 2 have separate driveways or common usage driveways, it is dependant on where the Oak Trees are.
Chairman King asks Randy to show on the map where the proposed set-a-side of conservation easement will be? Randy states, “green area”. Paul Parker asks what total acreage is. Randy – 15.39 acres.
Chairman King opens discussions between the board members; Hiram questions the current use financial obligation and confirms that it was submitted to the Selectmen; Richard Maloon stated the Selectman will determine that and Paul Parker, Selectmen’s Rep confirms that at the time of the meeting it was unknown what the exact monies were, so it has been taken under advisement and the Selectmen will try to find out the numbers/cost are then they will discuss and make a decision. Chairman King said that the Selectmen would report back to the Planning Board so that they are aware, as that would need to be contingent/binding upon the approval. Hiram Watson asks – No sidewalks in this development – Richard Maloon – No, we talked this over with a number of people including Randy and it would be
a sidewalk to nowhere, there is no existing sidewalk to connect it too, there are trails in the back. Randy just wants to add that on the sidewalk issue one reason he does not believe that it is practical because it would take away rural character and the stone walls that are fairly close to the road would have to be ripped out, some of the nice trees would also have to be taken down. Discussions continue about the topo of the area and what it would entail to build in the sidewalk, curbs, and underground drainage probably as there is not enough room between the stonewall and road for a ditch and a sidewalk. Norm Russell 1st questions is relative to the sidewalk, no sidewalk in this phase of the development, however you are not ruling out the use of sidewalk throughout the development – Richard Maloon – correct. In reference to the walking paths, he has concerns with people that live in the road frontage lots being able to gain access
to the sidewalk system that is eventually being intended to be in the back of the development. Is there any potential for prescriptive easement, say just inside the rock wall to accommodate a trail? Randy Orvis – believes yes, between right of way some places along side of wall, some along backside, rock wall is tree lined. There is further discussion about the placement of walking paths between the Chairman and Randy Orvis detailing other options that might be proposed. Norm Russell does want them to give consideration to the future owners of the development for some type of prescribed paths. Richard Maloon does comment that they are still trying to work with a road engineer, as they did not like the last proposal received and the discussion continues between Chairman King, Norm Russell and Richard Maloon with regard to the driveway and road placements.
Chairman King motions to continue the meeting, as it is now 10:04p.m. 2nd by Norm Russell, any discussion, Hiram Watson asks how long, he just got over the flu. Amend the motion to extend the meeting to 10:30p.m, Paul Parker believes it should not have a time, public present and should be allowed to voice their opinions. Chairman King amends his motion back to the original to continue the meeting, no time end, any discussion, no further discussion, motion passes.
Discussions pick up with Norm Russell, Richard Maloon, and Chairman King about the construction of the proposed road and the driveways access. Chairman King agrees with Norm Russell on the proposed shared drives, he would like to see the utilities as presented on the final plat, he also agrees with Norm as far as an easement along the front of the lots to the extent possible for pedestrian traffic with easement to provide a permanent easement across that. Chairman King takes a little issue with the proposal on the set aside and would like to see 1/3 set-aside in total around Waldron Pond. Bruce Cartwright adds his comment that you can’t draw lines and make the determination of exactly where the lots will be if you don’t know exactly.
Paul Parker would like to have a statement added in the deed that when selling lots, the stone wall is in the Town of Farmington Right Of Way and should not be altered. Randy Orvis explains that the property lines lie behind the stonewall which lies in the Town of Farmington Right Of Way and the wall should not be effected. Richard Maloon addresses that issues and states it’s a law that you cannot touch ROW property.
10:15 p.m.
Chairman King would like to open the floor for public comment and that John Law, would like to make a presentation. John Law stated he was going to make a photo presentation under PowerPoint however his PowerPoint program that he used was updated and with that the disk he had the presentation on no longer works, so he will be passing the board members copies of his presentation as he goes through. The presentation should take no longer than 10 minutes. Chairman King wants to allow the public to make any comments before John Law makes his presentation.
Jim Langis an abutter, normally against this, however he’s against what the board is trying to do to these guys, Cherub Estates has no common driveways, no upgrading to Bay Road, no cisturns for Fire Protection, no sidewalks; he thinks the board is going overboard on this application. Chairman King comments that during that application there were requirements and that infrastructure was put in place as part of his requirement. He believes that the development has changed hands a few times. If they have an approved plan and are not compliant, the Town of Farmington is working more diligently to make them more compliant as approved, in fact the last phase was contingent upon the completion of the infrastructure that was not being done according to the plan, so restrictions have been put in place on
the final phase.
John Laws’ 1st point is that he is not here in opposition of this development, what he is here for is to present to the public and the board certain issues that he feels are detrimental to the way the development has been proposed and with that he begins his “hand-out” presentation of his research and findings with regards to the safety of the area.
10:40 p.m.
Chairman King asks for brief comments from the public on John Laws presentation. Hearing no comments from the public this portion is now closed and now would someone like to make a motion.
Paul Parker would like to make a motion to continue the consideration of this application to our next workshop meeting, Chairman King believes it should be continued to our next regular meeting which is February 1, 2005, 2nd by Norm Russell, any discussion, no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King states at this point there are still 3 items left on the agenda for review and discussion and at this point he like to make a motion that we continue the Site Review Regulations and Sub-Division Regulations to our workshop session, 2nd by Paul Parker, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes. Last we have continuation of Zoning Ordinance Amendments and based upon Paul Esswein input as far as the things we have to do. Paul states in order for the Zoning Ordinance Amendments to be considered for the March Town Meeting there are some dates that have to be adhered to; 1/7/05 last date to post notice of Planning Board public hearing on the proposed changes; 1/18/05 Planning Board to hold final public hearing on the proposed changes.
Chairman King motions to continue this meeting to Tuesday 1/11/05 and post for 1/18/05, 2nd by Paul Parker, Hiram Watson abstains – he will not be available, Norm Russell – will not be available but is in favor, any discussion, no further discussions, all in favor, motion passes, Final Public Hearing 1/18/05.
Any further business to come before the board?
10:58 p.m. Motion to adjourn by Paul Parker, 2nd by Norm Russell.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 02/01/2005 WITH CHANGE NOTED IN BOLD AT PAGE 5 OF 10; LAST LINE.
______________________________ _____________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
