 |
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY – FEBRUARY 1, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Troy Robidas, and Hiram Watson
Absent: Don MacVane - Called in absent
Gerry “Gary” White (On leave of absence)
Norm Russell -Absent with notification
Robert Talon - Absent
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Stacy Gilman, Richard Maloon, Randy Orvis, Tony Alcorn, Bruce Cartwright, Larry Major-Pike Industries, Martin Gilman, Cheryl Huckins, John Huckins, Taylor Brinser, Christine Jacques, Sue Ducharme, Randy Talon, (3 abutters to Huckins proposed sub-division on Chestnut Hill Road - not signed in).
Chairman King called the meeting to order at 7:28p.m. (Meeting delayed due to Paul Parker working the voting polls).
OLD BUSINESS:
Review and approve the minutes of January 4, 2005, Hiram Watson motions to approve the minutes with discussion, 2nd by Paul Parker, Hiram notes on page 5 last sentence should read 3 in favor 1 opposed (Hiram Watson opposed) not all were in favor, no further discussion, all in favor, motion passes, minutes accepted with noted change. January 11, 2005 minutes, Hiram Watson motions to approve the minutes as written, 2nd by Paul Parker, no further discussion, all in favor, motion passes, 1 abstention - Troy Robidas, minutes accepted as written. January 13, 2005, Hiram Watson motions to approve the minutes as written, 2nd by Troy Robidas, no further discussion, all in favor, motion passes. January 18, 2005, Troy Robidas motions to approve the minutes as written, 2nd by Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all in favor,
motion passes.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chairman King opens the floor to Paul Esswein to allow him to address a few issues, each member has received in their packet a draft of the Master Plan that will be reviewed at the February 15 Workshop Meeting and would like each of the Planning Board members to review and comment back to the sub-committee on any changes. Hiram Watson asks if there will be a public hearing on that? Paul Esswein states no, it is just to review and still needs to go back to the sub-committee for finalization, and it is not a complete draft yet. At some point when it is ready to be presented to the board a public hearing will be held. The Strafford Regional Planning Commission is in the process of revising their Regional Plan and as part of that they sent out a questionnaire to all of the local Planning Boards and they
would like each of you to review (Paul shows the sheet in reference) "Regional Land Use Patterns and Characterizations Matrix". The SRPC has asked to be put on the agenda for the 15th of February to discuss this "questionnaire" with the board members and Paul suggested that each member review the contents of the questionnaire and answer the questions and have it ready for submittal at the meeting on February 15. Chairman King confirms that the SRPC wants to be on the agenda for the Planning Board Workshop Meeting and asks what the estimated time needed for their presentation, Paul Esswein, approximately 15 minutes. Chairman King wants to have the board vote on whether or not they want this added to their work session, is there a motion? Paul Parker motions to add this to the docket for the 15th, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, hearing no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes. Chairman King opens the floor back to Paul
Esswein to continue with his presentation. Paul addresses the other piece from the Planning Commission (handouts to each member) they are trying to develop their work program and basing it on local needs, this is just a work sheet to use. It basically contains their request for areas of assistance that we might need over the coming year, if each of you would fill this out and return to me, I will forward it on too the SRPC. Paul Parker asks what the time requirement is; Paul Esswein replies the end of the month. One other piece for discussion, we probably should be making a determination of all applications that come before the board whether or not they make any regional significance, as there is a state requirement that if a project has any type of regional significance than notification must be made to the SRPC and abutting towns to offer them the opportunity to comment on proposals. Paul believes that at present the Town of Farmington does not do this.
Paul Parker asks what the criteria are that is being used. Paul Esswein says they are defining development of regional impact as "any proposal before the land use board which in determination of the local land use board, could reasonably be expected to impact on the neighboring municipality because of factors such as but not limited to the following: the relative size or number of dwelling units as compared to its existing stock, proximity to the borders of the neighboring communities, impact on regional transportation networks, anticipated emissions such as light, noise, smoke, odors or particles, proximity to aquifers or surface waters which transcend municipal boundaries, and shared facilities such as schools and solid waste disposal facilities". Paul Esswein states, he gave each member a copy of the state statue regarding this under 36.55 definitions. Chairman King interjects with these are the 6 criteria that we would use to evaluate that, Paul Esswein counters
with they are not limited to that and those are the suggested ones. Chairman King poses a question to Paul Esswein, how many times have we been notified as a community in Farmington of developments in neighboring towns that would affect us? Paul Esswein, knows of 2; 1 was in Milton that Troy Robidas attended; it abutted the Town line, not Town property. But we do receive notification of all cellular communication towers if it is going to be sited within 20 miles of town. Paul is not aware of any developments that have had regional significance. He does believe it warrants some review during application time. Chairman King believes that we should consider adding this requirement to the Subdivision Regulations as part of the review process and Paul Esswein adds that possibly it should also be added to the Site Plan Review as it could have an impact on the traffic for a large commercial development. Paul Parker asks if the Selectmen have received copies
of this proposed change, Paul Esswein will insure each member receives a copy.
NEW BUSINESS:
Voluntary Merger of Pre-Existing Lots, Pursuant to RSA 674:39.a (Tax Map U10-26, Lot 26 and Tax Map U10-26, Lot 25): Seymour N. & Mary Bowden:
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein for a brief description of the proposed merger and assumes that Paul Esswein has read it to ensure that it is in compliance. Paul Esswein describes it as being at the end of Glen Street, lot 25 & 26 to be merged, there is a building on lot 26 right now that they are in the process of tearing down and there is only 1 housing unit on lot 25 as a result of this merger. Paul Parker asks if the smaller of the two lots is the one that will have the building demolished, Paul Esswein, yes. Paul Parker asks if it is being demolished as we speak? Paul Esswein-yes. Chairman King interjects by asking if currently there is only one residence on both pieces, Paul Esswein-no, there are two on both pieces, but they are tearing down one now. As a result there will be only one.
Troy Robidas asks where the other one is, Paul Esswein points to lot 25, which is 83 Glen Street. Chairman King asks if it lists the square footage / acreage, Paul Esswein does not have that. Chairman King states that when assembled it will be 175 by 150, Paul Esswein - approximately. Chairman King states that if this is approved it will be contingent upon the house being torn down, removed and signed off by Code Enforcement Officer, Chairman King makes that a motion, to approve Voluntary Merger contingent upon the removal of the structure that is being demolished and signed off by the Building Inspector, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARING PORTION:
Continuation of Application Review for 14-Lot Sub-Division, Phase I: For a portion of (Tax map R60, Lot 18), by Newdam, LLP Partnership.
Richard Maloon starts presentation for continuity reasons, and then will turn over to Tony Alcorn. There are 7 items that he would like to start off with; (1) they still would like to give the board all the required material that was requested for the March 1st meeting and have the board give them a yeah or nay. (2) The have reviewed the placement of the driveways, and he is not ready to go into specific details, Toney Alcorn will address that issue, (3) the underground utilities they agree with that and will be shown on the final plat, due to the weather, he couldn't tell if it was too cold or too warm, there planner did not get around to making them their blueprint, (4) sidewalks - they revisited the site and Tony Alcorn will address that issue, they are in favor of sidewalks, but there are some issues that
need to be addressed, (5) common land - they re-did the first phase what the common land is and we will give to you now with a redefinition of what the common land would be (original shown in green on map as 1/3), but they felt they could compromise and took all the land around what was called Waldron Pond, metes and bound description is available, (6) waiting to hear from the board on what the Selectmen decided on the collection of current use fee as they asked the Selectmen to waive that for consideration of the fact that they are going to convey to the Town of Farmington up to 100 acres, (7) review of the wetlands - Randy Orvis has reviewed the wetlands in more detail, but has not had a chance to talk with Paul Esswein and will be resolved before the next meeting. Richard just wanted to go over those 7 action items with the board and now turns the floor over to Tony Alcorn for specifics on the driveway and sidewalks. Tony begins with the statement that he does not
really have a lot more to add to what Richard already presented, however he re-iterates that it was recommended that they take a look at the driveways that were put in on Governors Road and they took multiple photographs and they concluded that indeed they could use that approach and comply with the request of the board, but basically you would have a shared driveway, but carefully looking at what is on Governors Road and they would replicate that look. What they found on Governors Road was two driveways coming out at the same point and where they actually cross the road boundary they narrow down to one driveway, however as they go in, as near as they could tell as soon as you cross over the edge of the town right of way you become two driveways wide and they look at that as an acceptable solution, they also believe that it would acceptable to prospective buyers, Tony suspects that is why on Governors Road they broaden out. In the more fully developed lots on Governors
Road, particularly the lot that is in Rochester itself, you can see the very practical effect of coming across and going to two driveways and then separating and going to the respective houses and you can see where the line is between the two house lot as there is vegetation growing and things that have been build from stone. It is an attractive entrance to both houses, at the same time a minimal impact to the road. They agree that it would preserve frontage on Bay Road, as they want to preserve as much of the stonewalls that are there. The final plat will show the two driveways coming together at the lot line, where they actually come out to the road, we believe they will only be one driveway wide. Sidewalks are next for discussion, both Tony and Richard took a lengthy look at both sides of the road as well our survey maps and contour maps, (now showing graphics on wall & pointing to areas of consideration on the sidewalk requirement) Bay Road goes down
into the Town center and from here (pointing to an area on the map) from the very end of their land is .6 miles from end of existing sidewalk. The sidewalk is 3 feet wide and set off the tarmac by about 2 feet or so with grassy surface and is very attractive and useful sidewalk. It would be very attractive to extend the existing sidewalk and would make the walk about 10 minutes for pedestrians from the downtown area and they like that idea. The downside to what they want to do, encompasses the stonewall from the edge of their property down to almost where the Cemetery area is, it would involve moving a major portion of the stonewall by about eight feet or so, to make room to put the sidewalk in and that posses a considerable effort. They are not sure if its an added value to preserve the historic stonewall. Parts of the stonewall are intact other parts are damaged from years past and very visible. From the Cemetery on down, along the left side
going out of Bay Road there is an actual drainage ditch along the road and drops down 2 feet or more, so in essence to put a sidewalk in that area, their plans would need to be altered quite a bit, they would need to take a bit more land from existing lots, move lot lines back, extend the road right-of-way back to the other side of the ditch, the other alternative would be to put in storm drains all along that particular area and then cover those up with sidewalks, a very messy proposition. Bottom line, they feel that sidewalks are very attractive, but feel that is a very tough accomplishment at this time. Tony uses a comment that Paul Esswein made and that they discussed some time ago; that being the feasibility of installing sidewalks in the future when Bay Road should be rebuilt.
Chairman King - Wants to open to the public for comment either for or against the proposed project, unless the applicant has some design issues they would like to present. Randy Orvis-would like to go over a few things, as Tony had mentioned, there are now 13 lots versus the original 14, he did go out and complete the test pits on the lots that actually had not had test pits done on them and discovered the wetland that Paul Esswein had found that he had missed and that is why the lots have been decreased down to 13. Randy Orvis wants to site walk with Paul Esswein to insure they both are referring to the same wetland area. Chairman King asks if that is in the area where lot 14 was, Randy Orvis-no; actually lot 11. Randy Orvis refers back to last months meeting where it had run pretty late, and that
comments from the public/abutters didn't get to speak to much, but there was quite a bit of input from John Law that was very valid and he's not sure how far to take those concerns with relation to the traffic issues that are quite a ways from the project and additionally some that are directly across the street, which they cannot due anything about the site distance from his driveway or directly from Cherub Estates and Randy is not sure as to why John Law showed his vehicle parked at the end of his driveway? They do realize that on that one sharp corner that they will have to do something about cutting back for. Chairman King interrupts for clarity on which corner Randy is referring to; between lots 7 & 8 visibility issue, or down between 11 & 12. Randy questions lots 7 & 8 and does not believe there is an issue with those lots, Randy states the visibility issue is lots 11 & 12, Chairman King - okay. Paul Esswein lot 8 is in question, slight
visibility issue and Chairman King confirms that when he and Paul Esswein went out to the site this afternoon (2/1/2005) that between lot 7 & 8 there is a little bit of turn to the road and also some elevation issues with the stone wall as it closeness in proximity to the road where foundation and retaining wall are located, it is dependent upon placement of lot 8 it might be a concern. Randy Orvis comments that he has not done a site walk on each individual lot. The basic changes in receipt from last month have been to change the common area around the pond and the elimination of 1 lot, and now we ask what additional work are you going to want us to address at the next meeting?
Chairman King now opens this part of the meeting to the public to ask any questions, or have comments regarding this application, speaking for or against.
Sue Ducharme - Questions the re-designation of the conservation area, shifting around from frontage to around the pond. Richard Maloon responds they have somewhat agreed to transfer / take out a conservation easement on the land in equal proportions upon approval from the board, i.e. if we get 14 lots, then we give approximately 14 acres to the conservation easement. The intent is still 104 acres (refer to C1 plan which is still in the plan). They did not want to give 104 acres all at once, this was a little protection for themselves, so as to not get 10 acres approved and have already given away the 104 acres to the Town of Farmington. Sue also asks for the first 13 lots, are you talking about around the pond as opposed to the frontage, Chairman King interjects - no and the frontage, as was requested by
the board, Paul Parker adds a comment of a minimum of 50' around the pond. Sue says she would highly recommend that the Town of Farmington consider that a very fair exchange in meeting the requirements of the cluster at this point and the location of the land is very appropriate for the first phase and maintaining the beautiful frontage as well as the pond frontage. She would hope that as part of the language of the conservation easement it would include a provision for public access. Sue also suggests that the board consider in the written language of the pond easement to include the dam and whether or not any changes might be part of the process. Richard Maloon replies, that he's sure something could be put in there, but if the Town of Farmington owns that property, Sue interjects that Newdam would be owning that property, Richard-yes we would be owning that property and would have to call it conservation easement, Sue asks if that has any provisions for
maintaining the dam? Richard Maloon-it would be addressed in that conservation easement, which means that something would be done within the spirit of that easement, if your talking about putting up a dam, which is very expensive, Sue - no I'm not, I'm actually thinking about maintaining status-quo, the pond has been there for a very long time and has created it's own habitat value and maybe down the road the decommissioning of the dam would have to be looked at, Chairman King interjects to Richard Maloon, regarding the draft language that has been submitted to Paul Esswein that the board has not had a chance to review as yet and believes it is a legal for review. Chairman King asks any more comments, questions, or concerns? With no further comment, turns the floor over to Paul Esswein regarding his thoughts on John Laws' presentation on certain issues pertaining to traffic. Paul Esswein - Did a review on literature with regard to Traffic Impact Analysis and I've
come up with some numbers (not with the review of Mr. Laws numbers) using a standard formula. Basically the Newdam project would create approximately 1200 vehicles trips per day, every unit of housing over time creates 10 vehicle trips per day, and 115 lots would equal 1,115 vehicle trips per day. Added to the existing trip generators on Bay Road within the Town of Farmington it could put Bay Road up into the 1700 vehicle trips per day category. Under our proposed Master Plan that would make it into a collector road, that would have its' own significance as that does not just serve the local residential units, it serves as a collector for multiple roads within the Town of Farmington and the Town of New Durham. Paul Esswein also comments that problems could occur, mainly site distance impedance, the posted speed limit is 35 MPH but feels that the speed is much higher than the 35 MPH as posted, no studies have been done to confirm this fact, it is just a
consensus. He would like to take Newdams' most recent plan and look at where their driveway placements are and decide if the site distances can be met, Paul also commented that he believes John Law brought up some very significant points to the site distance issue on Bay Road.
Chairman King believes the other significant point is the placement of the entrances regarding a more suitable placement. Chairman King refers back to the property walk he took with Paul Esswein today (2/1/05) to view the placement of lots and the access to Bay Road and they both concur that there are issues with lots 11-13, because of the curve and grade as well as some site distance issues as previously stated with regards to lot 8 coming up around the corner, whether it can be handled with re-location of the wall by pushing it back a little or some grading issues, also some shared driveways. Chairman King continues his discussion about the various lots and the placements of the driveways; Randy Orvis clarifies the lots in questions. Chairman King also believes that placement of the entrance to the
development should be across from Waldron Road and not down the street, he feels there are valid arguments for this cause, particularly looking long term and the significant increase in traffic that the proposed development will bring and feels it would be in the best interest for future planning (when it's possible) that a 4-way stop light system might be required, similar to Route 11 and Meetinghouse Road intersection. He feels it would be better planning at this time to think long term range than to be saddled with constructing a 4 way lighting scheme and reconstruction of an intersection a few years down the road. Randy Orvis interjects his thoughts and concerns about developing a 4-way intersection, when it's been his experience in the past that when you have these types of developments, that placement of the main entranceway of at least a distance away of 250' has worked very well and no need to accommodate a 4-way lighting scheme. Randy Orvis states the one
thing that they would not like to encourage is cars that do not stop for a stop sign and go straight down Waldron Road, if you have 2 T intersections you would not have that potential for cross traffic. Chairman King rebuffs, if you have people coming out of the development to go down to Waldron Road you end up making 2 stops versus 1 and having the potential to back up traffic even more the discussion continues on the T intersections and 4-way lighting scheme. Paul Parker interjects the fact of 2 major roads coming together at the 4 corners, that maybe the argument is good, but if you're talking about a development and people living within that development should be very well aware of a stop sign at the road, it's not a major road coming to the stop sign it's coming out of housing development. Randy Orvis argues the point of the people coming out of Waldron Road and shooting straight through, missing the stop sign. Troy Robidas- Randy you don't have a place where
it's coming in and out, Chairman King interjects it's between lots 6 & 7 and Randy Orvis confirms. The reason for the entranceway at 6 & 7 is it comes in at the cemetery and gives the development a good presentation and it's over 250' and the two roads do not interfere with each other. Chairman King adds the other lots in question are lots 11-13; his assessment is there are going to be driveway placement issues within those lots, to have good site distance and Randy Orvis interjects there is no question about that, Chairman King - In the next phase when infrastructure is implemented in the proposed plan, basically the access point adjacent lot 13, due to visibility and grade issue on the last 3 lots coming around the turn, it seems reasonable that they could be provided access to this infrastructure in the 2nd phase. Chairman King continues with the discussion with Randy Orvis on these particular issues of entranceways, access points, road cuts, grading
issues, etc. Richard Maloon-interjects and asks if those could be presented at the board next working session; Chairman King-any information that you forward to the planning department, can be added to the boards mailings, which go out twice a month. As far as being added to the agenda for the next Workshop meeting, this board would need to consider that request, however if you forward that information prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Richard Maloon asks if they should mail information to Paul, Chairman King - Yes and he will have it forwarded to the Planning Board Members. Chairman King further discusses site distances and driveway placements on lots up to lot 6 are not an issue, also I would like to see common access points and not driveways and certainly I am in agreement with that as the goal is to limit the number of access and not the actual driveways. To reiterate; there is an issue on lot 8 - and at the start of lots 11 - 13 on
the new plan, depending upon where you would put a lot placement on driveway 10, I'm not sure if you were going to combine with lot 9 which would make the most sense for site distance, but your next final proposed plan should show the placement of the shared driveways. Paul Parker-comments that by looking at lot 48 & 49; 48 is very small, could be very difficult to build, lot 49 looks like there could be some water issues, Randy Orvis asks why are you talking about Phase II when we're not there yet, Paul asks to just bear with him for a moment, he's still on the Phase I - 14 lot plan, but proposing a thought, of taking the road and putting it on the backside of those fronts lots than that would resolve the issue with the access on to Bay Road, Randy Orvis, right, but it wouldn't solve the issue of the corner being a back corner, Paul Parker-right, but you're still only going to have the one road coming out. This is just a thought. Chairman King-bear in mind
that it's a design issue and must be resolved and rectified to a sufficient state to do that and you could be subject to bond that work as part of the plan. Hiram Watson asks Randy how much elevation is there 10-30 or 40 feet? I know there is a ridge in there, I took a walk on my own at the site and I'm concerned how far in you'll have to come? Randy Orvis replies we will probably have to complete a slope easement into the property 10-15 feet is my guess. Hiram Watson asks how much elevation? Randy Orvis 7 or 8 feet higher than the road, which would have to be, cut down to the property line 4 or 5 feet. Hiram asks if the next plan will have driveway cuts showing, Randy - replies yes.
Randy Orvis the main discussion of this evening has been primarily one thing, he wants to make sure this evening that when they come back next month and all of sudden "these" issues need to be talked about. Hiram Watson suggests a site walk be done on this property and Troy Robidas agrees that should be done. Hiram Watson also stated that he is concerned with John Laws concerns. Richard Maloon asks if that is a question as to when you'd like to do a site walk? Hiram Watson, believes that it would be good for the whole board to site walk. Richard Maloon-my question is when do you want to do the site walk? Paul Parker and Randy Orvis believe that is a good idea to site walk, the only obstacle Paul Parker could foresee would be the weather conditions. Troy Robidas asks if
they can stake out where the proposed driveways are going to be? Chairman King suggests ribbons on a branch and Randy Orvis comments it will not be exact; it will be within a 5-foot area. Hiram Watson suggests inviting John Law to the site walk and maybe answers some of his concerns. Paul Parker asks what is a good time, Richard Maloon - I'm retired any time is good for me. Randy Orvis - The days are getting longer and I don't know if you want to do it on an afternoon or a Saturday. Chairman King, thinks it's a good idea, pick a day. The board members throw around some days and times and settle on Saturday, February 12 at noon, meeting at the Town Offices and then going up to the proposed Bay Road Site. Paul Parker motions to site walk Newdam, LLC on Saturday, February 12 at noon, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Hiram Watson asks Randy Orvis if he completed his objective that he was trying to reach tonight, Randy-my objective tonight is to ensure that we have all the boards requirements for next months meeting, I do not want to come in here next month only to find out that we need to present more data.
Paul Parker has one other question for Richard Maloon, you previously said that you have a traffic study, Richard Maloon - yes, they are 3 year old, traffic counts, State of New Hampshire, Bureau of Transportation, called Traffic Report. Paul Esswein states that he has spoken with the Regional Planning Commission and we are on their schedule to have traffic counters put out this spring and Paul requested that they add Bay Road as one of the studies for counts along with a few other roads in town. Continued discussion between Randy Orvis, Paul Parker and Troy Robidas about the impact of the road heading into the Town of Farmington at the monument intersection, what about bus stop impacts and where the pick-ups and drop-offs will be and what the rule for this is? Is it 1 1/2 mile or more or less to walk to
school? Troy Robidas questions the sidewalk coming down the left versus down the right and what that feasibility would be? Would the sidewalk come out by Holly Lane, is the bus going to stop at every house, should there be some type of building where the road comes out for the kids to wait for the bus? Tony Alcorn replies; if you go from the closest point of the property (which is lot 1) to the Grammar School and head down Bay Road and take public town roads all the way and come up to the Grammar School complex, "as the crow flies" you're probably about 1/2 mile, however but the road to travel is probably about 2 miles. Chairman King follows-up that in this phase or subsequent phases Newdam, LLC would be putting in part of the sidewalk that at a minimum he feels we should have a sidewalk easement along the frontage at a minimum down to the cemetery. Randy Orvis-so you're saying that the sidewalk should actually not be within a right of
way, more detailed discussion between Chairman King and Randy Orvis regarding the 3 rodder (spelling / definition?)
Chairman King asks if the board members have any further questions-no response. Chairman King directs the same question to the applicants-Tony Alcorn asks for clarification on the sidewalk and wants the board to look at the information that they have (survey information) and be sure they have sufficient space for a sidewalk and if they don't then they need to look at provisions on Newdam, LLC part for an easement. Chairman King says the reason he said easement is to provide space, if it's not already in the right-of-way and Randy Orvis would have to see where the road is placed in reference to the right-of-way.
Chairman King - if no further questions do we have a motion to continue? Paul Parker motions to continue this application our next workshop meeting, Chairman King is not receptive to this date, the applicant has work to do, the Planning Board members are going to take a site walk in 2 weeks and hopefully the applicant will come back with a final proposal, Paul Parker now motions to continue this application review to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting of March 1, 2005, Troy Robidas 2nd, Chairman King asks for any discussion, hearing no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Paul Parker motions to move to a 5 minute recess, 2nd by Troy Robidas, Chairman King asks for any discussion, hearing no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes, 9:07 p.m.
Chairman King calls the meeting back to order 9:17 p.m.
Application for Earth Excavation by: Pike Industries (Larry Major): To excavate 8.6 acres of the 11.90 acre parcel (Tax Map R35, Lot 7 Paulson Road).
Larry Major, Environmental Health & Safety for Pike Industries, the plan that he is presenting tonight has been in the works for over 1 year now, and they believe that they have worked it all out and are ready to present. The subject parcel for the project is Map 35 Lot 7 and one issue of immediate attention that they want to excavate some gravel, there are some isolated wetlands on the interior of the site that add up to just of 16,000 square feet and those became an issue as it’s a relatively small site. Pike Industries went to DES and to the Conservation Commission and to the TRC Committee to try and get some ideas on how to deal with the wetland, the preferred method that DES would like is to avoid touching the wetlands, but in this case the wetland would have been perched and we would excavate around
them, but that wasn't something that they entertained at all. In 2003 NH DES adopted the compensatory mitigation ratio's for projects that are in the same watershed and he has been spending some time at their facility on Route 11 which is along the banks of the Cocheco River and it occurred to him that they are doing a dredge operation in that area and are going to have some enhancements in that wetlands systems and that the lot the dredge operation is on R14 Lot 7, Route 11 is within the same watershed of the Cocheco River, so Pike approached DES and asked if they could do some type of mitigation package on their property on Route 11 to offset the 16,000 square feet of disturbance on Paulson Road. Two of their top people came out and walked Paulson Road and walked the Route 11 property, they are very supportive of the project and had no reservations. They proceeded to get the Route 11 property mapped and GPS (handouts given to board members). In today's
mail he received a draft report of "functions and values assessments of the property" on Route 11, the compensatory mitigation ratios allow for a 10-1 protection, if your going to protect uplands areas to offset a wetlands disturbance area 1.5-1 acre to acre of wetlands protection disturbance. Larry explains the areas of the map. The time frame of this project is to begin in April, he has also spoken with Clark Hackett regarding the driveway permit and does not look like that is going to be an issue. Right now to make this all come together we need to provide some legal instruments to put the land in protection, Chairman King interjects-that's for the mitigation, Larry Major-that's correct. He believes the Town of Farmington would be interested in receiving a section of the land or to participate in a conservation easement with Pike Industries, because lot 7 on Route 11 abuts the town well, one of the wells and also has potential for a well in the
future.
Chairman King opens the floor to the public for discussion, questions, or comments.
Martin Gilman - Director of the Cemetery Association - They gave the land to the Town of Farmington to put the wells in Route 11 and Central Street. At one time they had 3 ponds that were part of Mooney's Mills that were used to water the Cemetery, after the well was put in, they lost those ponds and there is no water there at all. He was present when the test pits were dug, they had someone approach them about moving the wetland onto the Cemetery, but they use that land for timber harvesting, so they thought they would not be interested in that proposition, but there is a lot of water there. If the wetland is left there, there is a lot of land that they cannot mine, with a 2-1 slope from the edge of the wetland is quite an area, setting high up on the hill, do not know how much water sits there, it is
an aquifer Type 1 with Type II Wetlands. When the town well was put in their ponds were drained dry and there is not a lot of elevation different between the town well now and the wetland.
Randy Talon - Farmington 500 Boys and Girls Club, Vice President, Board of Directors and have a few concerns they would like to bring up; 1st they hope to be active on their site this year and the roadway near the proposed driveway exits west towards route 11 is pretty narrow, with a vertical and horizontal curve, he believes it is dangerous today and with large trucks I'm sure it's going to be much worse. He asks what the plan is, if any, too improve that area, taking the embankment down from the trees, widen it out some, it certainly would not hurt. 2nd thing is to have some stipulations of hours of operation; Saturday would be a bad time for hauling, 4:00 - 4:30 would be preferable. Last question this is a 5 year term, what is the reclamation after that time, has there been any plans on what Pikes
intentions are? The reason for asking is the site previously purchased from Pike still has unresolved issues that were committed to in the past. Chairman King asks if those concerns were addressed in the letter that Randy Talon submitted and for the record, Randy states that he is still awaiting a response to the letter in reference and a little disappointing.
Stacy Gilman 55 Paulson Road, and am greatly effected by this proposal. I don't know much about wetlands and I'm not going to address that issue, it's the traffic flow that poses most concern, I'd like to see Paulson Road paved, I've heard theories that they don't want to pave the road because it's a racetrack and would increase the speed. I'm a detective in Rochester and it's a racetrack now, just bumpy now. The proposed area for their driveway and the 500 Boys and Girls Club is real narrow. All age group's speed across there. My biggest issue is that I do not want some big 19-unit development put into that area 10 years from now.
Chairman King asks if there are any other individuals from the public that would like to speak for or against this proposal. No response turns the floor back over to Larry Major to address some of the concerns raised.
Larry Major replies 1st to Martin Gilman's concern about the water and whether or not there is an acquirer there; they have dug a number of test pits in that area and for the most part have come up dry with the length of the reach of their equipment, so their proposal is to kind of phase the project both vertically as well as horizontally, they would go to a 270 elevation and dig test pits again to determine the ground water elevation. Chairman King interrupts for a question, saying your test pits were dug to what, Larry Major replies found water when we dug to 270; so the proposal would be to go back to all the picks that they dug where they didn't find water and re-dig. Chairman King asks what elevation this proposal is to dig to; Larry Major replies that the Town Ordinance says you can't mine 6 feet down
within the ground water, so they need to determine where that ground water table is and then stay 6 feet above that. Larry points the road across from the 500 Boys and Girls Club on Paulson Road that is substantially lower than the Pike site and he's not aware of any standing water in that area. As for the roadway concerns; when we finish with the Paulson Road site where the 500 Boys and Girls Club is at we are willing to honor the previous agreement that Tilcon had with the Town of Farmington and Pike is willing to honor that agreement, but there were some mixed feeling in the Town of Farmington as to whether or not the improvements should be undertaken and make it a smooth speedway versus a bumpy speedway. Pike was advised at that time to not make the improvements that Tilcon had agreed to. Pike would certainly be happy to revisit that agreement. As far as the children are concerned they are very cognizant of that and would not be trucking in and out
during those times particularly on weekends. Arrangements with the 500 Boys and Girls Club could be worked out with times of operation ending at 4:00pm, Pike is very aware of the activity in that area and certainly does not want to add any undue burden or safety concerns to the Town of Farmington. Chairman King asks what the proposed mode of traffic direction will be going? Larry Major-leaving their site and heading directly out to Route 11. Chairman King now directs questions from the board to Larry Major. Paul Parker questions picture that was handed to each member and asks for identification of major points in the photo - Larry Major identifies areas of photo for definition/identification purposes. Paul Parker follows Chairman King questions of traffic direction with hours of operation and what Pikes expectation of truck traffic to be. Larry Major-typically hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. prior t the 500 Boys and
Girls Club be located there however now that it could be an issue the hours could be adjusted to end around 3:30 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. however they are more than willing to work with the 500 Boys and Girls Club on their hours of operation as well as no hauling on Saturday when the Club will be in operation. As for the truck traffic itself, it would be no more than they had previously when they mined the other side of the road, Paul Parker interjects with 10, 15, 20; Larry Major thinks each truck will make 5 or 6 trips per day, probably total of 50-60 trips that being very conservative. Randy Talon interjects that the hours of operation are not going to effect the 500 Boys and Girls Club until the August / September time frame when they begin preparation of the soccer field. Troy Robidas refers back to the digging down to 270 elevation and then dig some more and come back to the board, is that your proposal to come back to the board and tell them how much farther down
they're going to dig to before they tap that 6 foot water level. Larry Major-could be done that way, but no firm number has been established as yet for the ground water level elevation, they do not own equipment big enough to dig down that deep, their proposal was to mine no lower than the 270 elevation, they realize that they have to stay 6 feet above that, town ordinance. They could come back if the town prefers that and provide update letters and establish what the ground level is. The discussion continues in various degrees with questions from the board about the wetland area, town well distance, cemetery distance, impact of the surrounding area when the land is moved, where the water will dissipate to when the wetland area is impacted, conservation commission recommendation or reports regarding this as well as approvals from the Board of Selectmen. Larry Major states it is a state law that the Conservation Commission gets the wetland permit application
package first, which they have not received as yet, Larry Major just received the functions and values report and the map arrived last week, and they are simultaneously moving those along. Chairman King-in light of that statement should we consider the continuation of this to the next available meeting in review of that, Paul Esswein-he believes that prior to DES issuing a permit, the Planning Board must approve their excavation permit, Larry Major agrees with statement, they have the site specific permit from the State of New Hampshire. This is the first time that Pike has done a compensatory mitigation process. The legal instruments that secure the easement or deed are part of the permitting package that the State wants, he's not sure if Pike is looking for conditional approval right now based on no build on the wetland. Chairman King interjects that if they have a review and comment by the Conservation Commission regarding the application of the proposed
mitigation that they can consider making approval contingent upon following some recommendations whether it is from legal or the conservation commission regarding how it should be implemented for conditional approval. Troy Robidas asks if there is any plans for the property once they've have finished excavation, i.e. give it to the Town of Farmington, or sell the land, let the 500 Boys and Girls Club have it for a ball field. Larry Major-no definitive plan, it could be for sale, or if the 500 Boys and Girls Club needed parking it could be used for that, some other type of field, or some use that the Town of Farmington might be in need of, if Mr. Gilman wanted to purchase so it could abut his property, there are no further plans by Pike for the land. Stacy Gilman comments again that he has a serious issue with 10 wheel trucks or better going up and down Paulson Road, he has a F350 truck and at times when another vehicle is approaching his in the road it is almost impassable
for 2 vehicles to pass at the same time and one vehicle must give passage first.
Chairman King makes a motion to continue this application to the next Planning Board Meeting of March 1, 2005, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes, 9:59 p.m.
Paul Parker motions to continue this public hearing, 2nd by Hiram, any discussion, hearing no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes, 10:00 p.m.
Chairman King-there are 2 other items on the docket and the last one (which the Chairman would like to bring up now instead of last) being the:
Application for site review by Christine Jacques: For operation of an in-home 1 chair hair salon, located at 91 New Hampshire Route 11 (Tax Map R03, Lot 005-2.
Chairman King asks for comments from Paul Esswein- Paul comments it is basically a home occupation that appears to meet all of the requirements. Chairman King asks if Paul believes it could be handled by an Administrative Review, Paul Esswein-if you would allow us to do that it could be. Chairman King makes a motion to take the application for site review by Christine Jacques to be an Administrative Review by the Planning Department, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, Paul Parker has a concern regarding traffic, entering on Route 11, Paul Esswein replies that we will do a trip generator type of analysis. Chairman King any further discussion? Chairman King wants to take a minute to ask the applicant if she understands the proposed motion, Christine-yes I do, Chairman King-remand it back to the Planning
Department to handle on it's own. Asks the applicant if she is in favor, replies yes. Chairman King asks for any further discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion pass.
Application for a 19-Lot Sub-Division By: John & Cheryl Huckins: (Tax Map R2, Lot 54; 48.9 acres), located in the SR-1 District.
10:04 p.m.
David Mott, Crown Point Survey and Engineering representing John and Cheryl Huckins; we have been before the board before for conceptual consultation and submitted the application for sub-division on this 19-Lot parcel on Chestnut Hill Road. The original parcel is 49.9 acres, in the SR-1 Zone. They are proposing a 19-Lot Sub-Division; previously they submitted a 1-lot sub-division in August of 2003 during the moratorium. These are in excess of 1-acre lots with uplands in excess of 40,000 square feet of contiguous uplands, all lots have in excess of 150' of frontage, all lots will have separate wells ands septic systems with test pits as shown on the plan with 4,000 square foot leaching areas and 75' well radiuses. There is a deeded easement across the property and the marsh to the rear, to provide access
to the lots to the rear of the property; deeded access was actually created in 1920 approximately. There was a deeded survey plan in 1980 where the access was surveyed out and revised, as shown on our plan. From the conceptual plan that we have brought in we previously discussed and have significantly re-designed the road. Previously presented going across a wetland in the back, having a large loop road going around, the re-design of the sub-division road to minimize the wetland impact as much as possible, a new design eliminates 4,000 square feet of wetland impacts, with total impacts now of less than 10,000 square feet. The new design still consists of a loop road, however it does not cross that rear wetland and has a 400-foot cul-de-sac to access the back. A 1-curve cut has been maintained to maximize safety for egress and ingress onto Chestnut Hill Road and there is an existing cemetery on the property that we've found and we will deed that to the Town
of Farmington and have accessed directly from part of the right of way. The road length has been shortened, the loop road has been shortened, the total road length along center line from the edge of pavement at Chestnut Hill Road and around and back to where it joins back up is now 2466.08 feet, previously around 3000 feet. The width of the road is 24 feet, shoulders are 2 feet and the pavement is 20 feet. Centerline curve radius is 200 feet with tangents of 100 feet between the curves, per Town of Farmington regulations. They have gone through the conceptual design and made sure that this made all the Town of Farmington standards as far as the road widths, centerline radius and tangent lengths. They have asked for 2 waivers essentially; 1 curve which is the return curve back along the loop where it comes back across, there is a 15 foot site easement shown on the plan, ask for a waiver from the 200 foot center line radius to 150 foot center line radius
and TRC thought that was a good idea if they implemented a 15 foot site easement as shown on the plan. Chairman King asks who is to maintain the site easement, John Huckins-when it's first done it will be a road association because it's a private road as any other sub-division is maintained, but if the people that live out there petition the Town of Farmington to take the road over and the Town accepts the petition it then becomes the towns responsibility to maintain. A 2nd waiver they are requesting is the side slopes of 2-1 which they have previously requested as well and just bringing it to the boards attention to formally request the waiver. They have discussed the road design at 2-1-side slope to minimize wetland impacts with the board previously as well as the conservation commission and the TRC committee. We seem to have received favorable responses from everyone to minimize wetland impacts with their wetland crossings. Mark Jacobs, a certified
wetland scientist did the wetland delineation. Equalization culverts to be put in at all the wetlands crossings, most of the wetland are flat there not full of water they are forested wetlands. A dredge and fill application has been completed to the State, sub-division application, site-specific application all submitted. As a result of going through the drainage analysis the plan before you tonight has had revisions made to it, nothing to the lot sizing or road location, just SES soils on the plan, which is a requirement for the dredge and fill permit application, added drives, culverts, finished road grading, silt fencing, revised plans have been brought here tonight and will pass out to you as well as the drainage analysis. Chairman King asks if everyone is receptive to that, all respond-yes. Chairman King - question regarding this old easement; John Huckins - there are 2 different lots out on the back that have this easement right, there are two
different land owners that have a right to this easement; the way it stands now is that coming in off of Chestnut Hill Road there will be an easement through these two lots (showing on the map) and he's incorporated the road into the rest of it, he's spoken to the two people and working on having them use the roadway as part of their easement and then the balance of their easement will be off of the cul-de-sac going along the same line that it is. I wanted to make sure it was okay the way it's being presented before anything legal is drawn up. One of the individuals is talking to his attorney to make sure he would still have his legal right. The only impact to this would be the first two lots, which 1 is 2 acres and 1 is 3 acres.
Chairman King opens this part of the meeting to the public for comment or questions, either for or against this application. Citizen (did not identify herself) she's the one with the easement and has the deeded right of way to that and she had a concern with that, because once you start changing deeds you lose a lot of rights. She questions, if she develops hers, she has lot 55 will she have a problem from the cul-de-sac over to access her property. Chairman King - not for access, but for sub-division due to the Farmington restriction of not being allowed to go more than 900 feet, the driveways are exempt from that 900-foot requirement, but for sub-divisions the 900-foot road length limitation applies without a secondary access, this proposed application is acceptable to what has been accepted in the
past.
John Huckins adds that there are two things on the open space that would have the easement going through there and also the pond, he's going to have it written so that in the future it could be set-up as a fire pond if it is deemed necessary, which I was originally going to do, but after talking with the fire department they are worried about liability issues if something is not maintained properly and they try to tie into it as a fire doubles in size every minute, so what the fire department would automatically due is to bring pumper trucks in for any fire, and I was told not to put anything in for fire protection because I would just be throwing my money away. I will have it written into the language of the open space those are the only two encumbrances, the right of way and right for that pond to be enlarged if it
needs to be for a fire pond. This has not been submitted as yet, but can make it a contingency or part of the approval. I have also given up 2 lots to decrease the impact to the wetlands as well as decreasing 600 feet road.
Chairman King-summarizes the 2 waiver requests one of those being road radius waiver. At this point we should consider those waivers and make a vote.
1st - visual site road radius easement as proposed on the plan; Troy Robidas makes the motion to approve that waiver, Chairman King - contingent on the plan, 2nd by Hiram Watson, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
2nd - request of edge of road slope being 2-1 versus 3-1 and to confirm the request that is for the entire road, David Mott-that is the way we designed it, it helps to keep the all of the proposed road grading in the right of way as well, look at sheet 5 & 6 you will see that those are the road plans and it shows the contours of the road plan showing them staying within the right of way, except for a slight area at lot 20, see road profile on sheet 7 most of which continues to sheet 8 Chairman King asks if there is a motion in regard to that request for waiver, Hiram Watson motions to approve, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, Paul Parker questions 3-1, but goes along with Troy 2-1 where 3-1 is for larger roads, did the TRC had no problem with this, Paul Esswein-no. Paul Parker asks about the vegetated slopes
and how can we make it a part of the motion that they remain as part of the vegetated slope; John Huckins says you can make it part of the contingency, we will do it. David Mott says it only makes sense as it stabilizes the slopes. A friendly amendment by Paul Parker to Hiram Watson motion, Hiram Watson accepts Paul Parkers friendly amendment to approve the vegetated slopes at 2-1 versus 3-1. Chairman King has one more question/concern why wouldn't we want to have a 3-1 slope on the entrance, David Mott replies see sheet 1-wetland area (shaded) impact as you come in, first 80 feet are all part of the wetland impact and that is why they went 2-1 versus 3-1. Any further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King asks why is the cemetery that is on the property be deeded to the Town of Farmington. John Huckins replies as part of the road right of way so that if the town picks up the road it would become town property, but to start with it is going to be part of the association while it is still a private road. The new sub-division ordinance shows it as a separate lot, even though this is a proposal you haven't accepted it to move forward they were trying to keep it as a separate area so it wasn't part of the building area next to it, so they made it part of the road right away. Chairman King-if it becomes part of the Town of Farmington then it becomes part of their maintenance, and right now by state law you are liable to maintain that cemetery in proper working condition with a fence and a
functioning gate, this law has been in place a long time. David Mott interjects that by keeping this by the road it gives the town option of having the towns cemetery associations take over the upkeep and by keeping it as part of the right away it has easy access. Paul Esswein interjects that it could be set-off as a separate tract, which would be an un-developable piece of property within the development that the ownership could be maintained with the property that is not a lot but is a tract; he will speak with legal counsel on the exact State of NH requirements. John Huckins is trying to meet the intent not just the requirements.
Chairman King asks if there are any further questions, Paul Parker questions /comments as it went with Newdam, LLC or any other major sub-division, how is the traffic going to effect Chestnut Hill Road, this road is not what is used to be 10 years ago and by adding another 20 home sub-division how is that going to effect it as well as the effect on the school systems? Chairman King - so if we ask them to review it what are we going to do with it? Troy Robidas also concurs with Chairman King on what the information will provide them with. John Huckins replies that he's done traffic studies in the past and with the 18 lots the amount of trips that would be impacted today, especially a connector road the impact is very minimal, and where the proposed road comes out on Chestnut Hill Road we have 600-700 feet of
site distance and the road comes out straight flat, so there is no real traffic hazard.
Chairman King asks if the TRC committee reviewed this road and the proposed infrastructure. Paul Esswein the issues that the TRC had was the roadway itself where the site distance and the radius at the end of the cul-de-sac. The other issues were lighting and the rotation of the school bus stop. John Huckins interjects that the lighting was brought up by the police chief and he asked us to do and we agreed as part of the covenant was to require light posts be put out at each driveway with the number of the house clearly indicated in case of an emergency, he was concerned about the darkness of the sub-division. Troy Robidas asks if they have a copy of the covenants, John Huckins-we have not written them up as yet, they are looking at 1500 square feet for a 1-story house, 2000 square feet for a 2-story
house with a 2 car garage and a paved driveway. They are not trying to do a huge upscale development but not low end either, trying to keep it in the middle of the road. Chairman King asks if the TRC had any ideas on the bonding of the infrastructure and bonding of the improvements at the road. Paul Esswein-we did not discuss that. John Huckins - we will abide by whatever the RSA states that being anything that is not performed by the time we ask for a building permit will be bonded and that they would have to meet with the Selectmen to determine a value of the bonding to be held by the Town of Farmington as that is the state law and they do not have a problem with that.
Chairman King would like to see the entranceway to the development bonded to cover for any damage that might happen to the Chestnut Hill Road, John Huckins accepts that condition.
Troy Robidas asks about stop signs, John Huckins shows where on the plan 2 stop signs could be located, so that it would create a 90 degree angle, you could put that as a condition also, Troy Robidas agrees with John Huckins that is for a safety aspect.
Chairman King asks for any further discussion, Paul Parker says motion for continue, Chairman King if that's the motion you want to make, John Huckins asks what it is they want them to bring back, Chairman King says that’s a good questions, John Huckins asks if you're asking to continue what is it you want us to bring back. Paul Parker-review from legal on the cemetery lot, Chairman King says you can make it conditional upon review of legal and town planning.
Peter Bosen - only will take one minute of their time, I'm a direct abutter #124 Chestnut Hill Road and my wife and I are all for this. We feel that it is a great mid-level sub-division and there are quite a few of people that are moving to Farmington from other surrounding areas including my mother who is interested in the development.
CONTINGENT UPON THE FOLLOWING:
* Bonding on uncompleted infrastructure
* Bonding on area Chestnut Hill Road entrance
* Contingent upon State sub-division
* Contingent upon all permits for wetlands crossing
* Contingent upon approval of covenants as review by town counsel (i.e. lighting, paved driveways, etc.)
* Contingent upon approval of town counsel and town planning about the delineation of handling of the cemetery
* No driveways within 100 feet of any intersection except with lot 13
* Excessive slopes on those that exceed 10% comply with steep slope ordinance
* Contingent of stops signs at 3 intersections
Paul Parker makes a motion due to the lateness of the hour that we continue to the next Planning Board Meeting of March 1, 2005, Chairman King 2nd the motion, Troy Robidas not sure why we want them to come back, already in discussion now, Troy Robidas - maybe the cemetery issue, Hiram Watson disagrees and thinks we should push it through there, are 9 concerns and are all very simple, last time he was here we worked late and we are doing it again, I just disagree with the motion, Chairman King asks for any further discussion, all those in favor of the motion, motion fails. Another motion, Hiram Watson motions to accept the plans of John & Cheryl Huckins with the conditions as specified previously, we have a motion, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, hearing no further discussion, all those in favor, motion
passes 3-1; Paul Parker no.
Chairman King asks if there is any other information before the board. Hiram Watson would like copies of the surveys. Paul Esswein has copies and will provide each member with a copy.
Chairman King motions to adjourn, 2nd by Paul Parker, all those in favor, motion passes. 11:17 p.m.
_____________________________ ______________________
Charlie King, Chairman, Date
Farmington Planning Board
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 03/01/2005
| |
