PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY – MARCH 1, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Troy Robidas, and Hiram Watson
Absent: Don MacVane - 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: Randy Orvis - Orvis/Drew LLC, Tony Alcorn - Newdam, LLC, Richard Maloon - Newdam, LLC, Bruce Cartwright- Newdam, LLC, Donna M. Goslin, Larry Major - Pike Industries, Steven Edwards, Su-Ann Stickles, Jonathon Oakes-Pike Industries
Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS:
Review and approve Planning Board Minutes of 02/01/2005; Paul Parker motions to approve, 2nd by Troy Robidas, no discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
Review and approve Planning Board Minutes of 02/12/2005; Hiram Watson motions to approve, 2nd by Paul Parker, no discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
Review and approve Joint Meeting Minutes (Planning Board, Selectmen and Zamps) of 02/24/2005; Paul Parker states that the ZAMPS committee should accept and approve minutes.
Paul Parker discusses the O.S.P. (Office of State Planning) handout that was included in each of the boards packets and suggests that each board member attends, these are very informative meetings and reminds each of them that the application for return is 03/18/2005 for deadline of 04/01/2005, to allow for the Town of Farmington to issue the check(s). This application also needs to be distributed to each of the ZAMPS subcommittee members, for approval from the Selectmen. Paul Parker says you can never get too much information and you can never get too much training, it is advantageous to everyone to attend.
Chairman King reads a letter from the Conservation Commission presented by Randy Orvis on the Huckins proposed subdivision on Chestnut Hill Road, recommendation of a conservation easement, it has already be made a contingency to the plat
Paul Esswein addresses a request from the Moose Mountain Greenways for "A letter of support" for their application to the coastal and estuarine land conservation program to fund the purchase of 2,185 tract of land in Middleton and Brookfield, New Hampshire. They have supplied a sample letter, which the Board of Selectmen has approved. It is at no cost to the community just a general letter of support for their application. Paul Parker makes note that there is some grant money available on the federal level - Paul Esswein confirms. Chairman King asks for a motion; Hiram Watson motions to accept the letter and to support, 2nd by Troy Robidas, no discussion, all in favor, motion passes. Paul Esswein also reads a letter from the Regional Planning Commission reminding and requesting a
couple of volunteers / members that are needed for 2 open positions, SRPC is looking for a higher rate of participation from member communities, Chairman King asks what the schedule of meetings are; Paul and Randy Orvis both reply once a month on Thursday nights, possibly the 3rd at their facility in Dover.
Paul comments that he and Ernie have discussed some different recruiting methods to attract new members. Paul Esswein also reminds the members that he had passed out a questionnaire at last months meeting and again asked the board members to fill out and return to Paul at their earliest convenience. Next item that Paul would like to address is the proposed work plan chart he has passed out. This chart is for all planning functions within the Town of Farmington, it is not specifically for any individualized department; given the fact that we will have a new Master Plan and the number of other projects that are ongoing i.e. Site Plan Review and Subdivision Review, and Regulations this chart is to try and map out how we fit all the "work" into the next year or so, he would like each board member
to think about who should be responsible for the action (i.e. staff, planning board, zamps, consultants, BOS) and how it would be accomplished and prioritized. Paul Esswein relays that the Conservation Commission is looking at reclassifying some Class II wetlands to Class I wetlands (there is a procedure in the towns ordinance to do that) they would their consultant give a presentation to the board on April 19 at the Planning Boards Workshop meeting which is preliminary to the public hearing notice to get the re-designation going. Chairman King -we will have to make a motion to get that on the Planning Boards Docket, Paul Parker makes a motion to add the Conservation Commission presentation to the April 19 agenda, 2nd by Hiram Watson, no discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King states that before we go to the first public hearing he wants to have a discussion about the 1st application that being the; Continuation of Application Review for 2-Lot Sub-Division with documentation as previously noted in the December 21, 2004 Planning Board meeting: By Donna Goslin 154 Ten Rod Road (Tax map R5, Lot 9).
Paul Esswein reads, "Conduct for Town Officials" (i.e. conflict of interest) applies to both employees and Town Officials in appointed positions. Paul Esswein further comments about his conversations with the Town of Farmington Attorney and what constitutes a conflict of interest. The answer is having a direct financial interest in the issue; he feels as long as the Chairman states that he is a direct abutter only and no financial interest in the application, only participate in the hearing, but the Chairman would not vote, this allowing a full quorum to hear the case, then Paul feels that would be reasonable. Troy Robidas agrees with Paul Esswein statement, but believes he could vote since there is no financial benefit to the Chairman, Paul Parker questions another document that precedes the
document from which Paul Esswein refers, Paul Esswein - statue? Discussion between the board members and Paul Esswein on what exactly this document is and it's interpretations. Paul Parker does pass around his copy of the Conflict of Interest - Code of Ethics dated 1990. Chairman King advises the applicant (for which this discussion relates too) her rights in this hearing and the continuation procedures to allow for a full quorum since the Chairman must be recused. Discussion continues between the applicant and the board members to sort out the next best possible meeting time that the applicant and/or her surveyors will be available.
Hiram Watson motions to continue this application to Thursday, March 3, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regularly scheduled ZBA meeting providing a full board will be in attendance. If a quorum cannot be attained then this application continuation will move to the Planning Board Workshop Meeting of Tuesday, March 15, 2005 and will be the 1st item on the agenda, 2nd by Paul Parker, no discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
Continuation of Application Review for 14-Lot Sub-Division, Phase I: For a portion of (Tax Map R60, Lot 18) by Newdam, LLP Partnership:
Randy Orvis opens presentation for the applicant by handing out full sets of revised drawings that he had brought into the office last week, this has 2 additional sheets that show the sight distances. Tony Alcorn discusses the plot plan changes that have been presented to the board, as Randy Orvis indicated at the TRC Meeting of the previous week, this now shows the new cuts and driveway placements. The cut on the curve goes down towards the river then goes back from the road at least 30' and lengthwise upwards of 80' perhaps more "very sizeable cut" this brought the developers to question what is it that they are doing here along with the subsequent visits they did by themselves to get a better sense of what is going on with that piece of road; two words that describe (in Tony's mind) scenic road
and historic road, Tony questions if the cut that goes down and crosses over the road posses a broader interest in a scenic / historic road preservation that they have not taken into consideration and for the sake of 2 of lots are they going to change the historic road of the Town of Farmington? Question of safety is something the Town of Farmington might want to address; it was not explicitly stated by the board that they wanted it straightened out for safety reasons. So now they have come back to the board and have taken out 2 lots which now removes the need to have the large cut put in as previously proposed, so now there are 10 lots in front of the board versus 11.
Chairman King believes that there certainly is an issue with the road safety and that as a board we might consider the request of a maintenance easement for whatever the footage might be at that corner to allow for sight distance, because it is an issue there and as the traffic increases it might be something the Town of Farmington should consider. Richard Maloon does not understand why the board is bringing this subject up now, it is not on the table now, we are not saying we won't do it, we are not asking permission; Tony Alcorn asks if it is being brought up as "general" discussion for the future planning by the Town of Farmington to make that a safer cut, also if it would be possible for this board to request from the developers to put a cut in that area to make the road safer as part of the project to
be decided at that time; Chairman King - agrees and re-states his comment was made so that when the lots get to the build out of the potential 100 lots and one of the major accesses is on that lower corner there may need to have some major work done. Randy Orvis argues the point to put in a major cut at "that lower corner", as Tony previously indicated "scenic / historic" road and by putting that cut in to make the corner have more visibility could potentially increase the traffic speed not the speed limit as drivers could then see around the corner, whereas left with no cut it could slow down the traffic speed going around a corner, and there is not driveway / access point at that particular point. Paul Parker comments that during the sidewalk his comments were in agreement with Tony's that the area is scenic and historic and he also agrees with Randy Orvis statement that if there is no driveway at that area then there is no need to cut for
sight distance. Chairman King asks Paul Esswein for comment; until it becomes apparent that it may be necessary to do improvements on the road to accommodate the additional traffic he does not feel that it needs to be sighted at this point. He feels one thing that might be done is to have Randy Orvis mark out where that right-of-way boundary is to allow us to determine how much could the Town of Farmington accomplish on there own without the easement, in terms of brush clearing and clearer sight, that being up to the Town of Farmington highway department. Randy Orvis goes over the changes in the plan that was asked for, those being on sheets 5 and 6 added note to the conditions of approval, "all utilities shall be underground" and from TRC Meeting "driveways shall be paved w/2" of pavement from the edge of the pavement to the property line (a.k.a. apron)", to the right-of-way line, these are above and beyond normal conditions. Randy
Orvis passes out photos showing road at the other point where sight distances are concerns, in front of cemetery would be the future road for Phase II, it would also be driveway for lot 6 off of that road, Randy shows outline to the board with design requirements. Randy Orvis discusses the speeds and minimum stopping distances in Kilometers and then converts back to MPH; state standards are in metric form. The biggest problem in the area is the stonewall. Paul Parker asks if they will take down the wall and then put back in place, Randy is not sure if it will be put back in place, Paul Parker asks if that decision has not be made yet, Tony Alcorn - we will try and preserve as much as possible. Paul Parker questions the sight distance on lot 11; Randy Orvis will be accessed through the new proposed road over 365', which was originally lot 13, this is just past the telephone pole with the box on it.
Chairman King poses question to Paul Esswein; the applicant has shown that there needs to be work done in the right-of-way to place driveways and fix sight distance; typically what is the way to handle this regarding who's doing what and who has approval of the work? Paul Esswein - typically since it is part of the project the project will do the work, but it would be at the approval of the road commissioner and the conditions that the board would implement. Chairman King comments if the board considers this to be a reasonable solution that it could be made contingent upon the approval of the work being done by the road department, you could also request a verification that the sight distances are being achieved upon completion of the work, by an engineer. This would be by a third party. There is a
lot of discussion with the existing "pole" sight, move or not, hooking up the underground utilities to that pole, Randy Orvis does not believe at this point it poses a problem, maybe down the road. This pole is actually up against the stonewall.
Paul Parker questions to Paul Esswein the previous issue with wetlands. Paul Esswein replies that they have gone back out and re-delineated and that is why there is a lot combination. Another issue; on the sight walk there was an issue and Paul Esswein was going to review the state formula "ASTRO Specs". Paul Parker also questions the 2 proposed roads between lots 6 & 7 and lot 11; are these to be constructed during this building period. Tony Alcorn replies, the road next to lot 11 will be a driveway that runs along 200' and then goes into the lot, however in the future will become road and brought up to road specifications. Paul Esswein comments that there is a set of standards for separation of intersections; if your not going to have a cross intersection than you must have a
minimum of 175' between intersections, and this well meets those criteria. The discussion continues in great detail regarding all the lots and driveways entrances and the locations as well as the distances between intersections. Paul Parker poses a question on the future buy of a lot. When the buyer purchases the lot and builds their own home and then decides that the proposed driveway as presented here is not where they want it, how will that issue be circumvented? Randy Orvis suggests a condition of approval to have drivewways pre-set, and if the new land owner wants that condition changed they will need to submit a request to the board to amend the plan. Chairman King notes that it is the road agents ultimate authority, Randy Orvis comments he only heard the 2" of pavement requirement at the TRC Meeting.
Chairman King questions the 18 acres of conservation area of this Phase I; and whether the Planning Department has had the opportunity to review the documentation; Paul Esswein -yes we have as well as the Attorney's review and he needs to review with the Attorney. Paul Esswein the boundary descriptions will be appended to the conservation easement. Chairman King - we have metes and bounds, proposed language for conservation easement, questions what body would manage the property. Richard Maloon states conservation commission, however since that board is not fully staffed Paul Esswein takes the responsibility to receive such easement after approval by the Selectmen.
Paul Parker still has 2 items to address: Traffic on Old Bay Road "BAY ROAD" new name; traffic counts was 700 cars per day, and this will make it 1200 cars per day; Chairman King interjects that number is the total build-out. Chairman King thinks at this point the incremental impact is not of big issue until further down the road when the additional Phases are implemented. Paul Parker - what are the design standards for Old Bay Road (Bay Road); the design parameters for traffic count per day. Randy Orvis - never designed was an Indian Trail, Paul Esswein was designated in the general plan as a minor arterial or major collector one of the two, which has a capacity of a certain % per day. Randy Orvis current numbers from State from 1997 - 460 cars per day, 2000 - 530 cars per day. Chairman King
questions Paul Esswein about the Master Plan Review this has been designated as a collector road, Paul Esswein - correct, there are 3 types of roads; feeders, collectors and arterials. Paul Parker-one last question concerning an earlier conversation about sidewalks - where did the board end on that? Chairman King-believes that the applicant left it as providing an easement and Tony Alcorn adds also on the other side of the stonewall, not too much beyond the graveyard, by all rights the easement should go all the way down to lot 11, beyond that point it does not make much of a difference. Randy Orvis has not reflected that on the plan, as he's not sure on the width of the sidewalk. Paul Parker comments that the Selectmen are to discuss the whole scope of the sidewalk issue in the Town of Farmington. Chairman King hopes that the Selectmen notify the Planning Board Members when that discussion will take place, it is a very important issue for the Board to be
aware of. Chairman King feels that any current use penalty revenue should be set-aside for some of the Town of Farmington's infrastructure and to earmark those funds for improvements, there are 2400 feet that has issues, broken areas, gaps, repairs and monies that are recovered from lost revenues from such developments should be set-aside for those type of improvement, Paul Parker agrees. Randy Orvis questions the width of the easement that is needed, he feels not wider than 10 feet. Paul Esswein comments that research could be done to see what the standards are in general. Tony Alcorn - comments the marketing of this property to include the size of the wall and to note that someday there will be a sidewalk there, this significantly affects the looks and character of the property and the connection to the downtown area. Discussion of the sidewalk easement, stonewall movement, benefits of having a sidewalk and the downfalls continues. Tony Alcorn
asks Randy Orvis his understanding of what easement they are going to have; Randy Orvis states based on the right-of-way line, so the stonewall could be moved, if this becomes a collector road and not a feeder road and improvements need to made to meet the demands of the traffic, then the stonewall would have to be moved, pavement 28' wide versus 22', better drainage, better shoulders. Tony Alcorn sums up as; the easement will begin with the road right-of-way of the town boundary; Chairman King - yes - that would be his thought. Paul Parker asks if there are wetland issues; Randy Orvis replies, no wetland permits are necessary. Chairman King-state sub-division approval still required, Randy Orvis - yes still requirement. Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if the Planning Department has anything further to add to this discussion, none other than the sight distances and wetland issues which have been addressed.
Chairman King now opens to the public 9:07 p.m. to speak for or against this application. No public comment at this point. Chairman King asks for any further questions from the board, questions the applicant if they have any more input and then will break for 10 minutes to review the application and the open space residential cluster ordinance for which they are applying under and to insure all items have been addressed. Randy Orvis does not have anything further to forward.
Chairman King motions for a 10 minute recess, 2nd by Paul Parker, no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Eight of the 14 objectives have been met under the cluster sub-division regulations. Granting of the Special Use Permit. Under the application procedure B - not applying for any density bonus. Chairman King asks Paul Esswein; sections E & F does the application meet those requirements? It is Paul Esswein conclusion - yes. The tract frontage is not developed more than 50%.
Chairman King and the applicant discuss in great detail the setback requirements of the underlying zone for lot 1.
Chairman King motions for lot 1 to be consistent with the underlying zone on setback requirement of 15', 2nd by Troy Robidas, no discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
Discussion continues between the board members, Paul Esswein and the applicant, with regards to the 50' setback versus the 25' and the advantages to the applicant and future homeowners on the "look" of the development.
Hiram Watson motions to waive the front set-back reduction 50' to 25' of the underlying zone, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion = Paul Parker is reluctant and Chairman King does agree with him somewhat, but they are not undermining what the ordinance calls out; no further discussion, all in favor, 3 in favor, Paul Parker opposes.
Chairman King - as far as the rest of the set-backs should comply to the balance of the ordinance which is 50'; 15' from the side set -back; 40' structural separation for all single family units; 50' structural set-back for multi-units (which the applicant says they will not have) and 10' structural from all lot lines. Randy Orvis agrees with all that. Chairman King comments that 10' is less than what the underlying zone is, yes-Randy Orvis.
Chairman King makes a motion that the balance of the setbacks conform to this ordinance; i.e.; side, building separations, and lot lines, 2nd by Paul Parker, any discussion; discussion between Troy Robidas, Chairman King, Paul Esswein and Randy Orvis for clarity on the side structural setback separation requirements, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King - at this point we are into overtime so a motion to continue is required; Chairman King motions to continue for 1/2 hour until 10:30 p.m.; 2nd by Troy Robidas, no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King - Reviews the nine items of conditional contingencies; item 9 that was discussed at TRC but not at the Planning Board level as requested by the road agent, who has not authority to make contingencies and that Randy Orvis "has jumped the gun" and added to plat, Chairman King asks for consideration of this contingency and asks for a motion - a discussion ensues between the board members and Randy Orvis for this contingency to be added.
Hiram Watson motions that the applicant paves the driveways with 2" of pavement from the road to the R. O. W. (basically an apron - standard driveway); 2nd by Troy Robidas; discussion about this being a formal condition of their approval and what the length is? ; Chairman King clarifies to Hiram the question is, if we make it contingent upon the approval it may in fact have to be done before the approval has to be signed, so is it contingent or should Building Permits not to be issued until after that's done, if it's contingent…then it must be completed before the Chairman signs the plat or it has to be bonded. Hiram - you don't want it done before the building permit, Randy Orvis and Paul Esswein say yes you do want it done before the building permit or the big heavy trucks will break the pavement,
and discussion continues between the members of the board and Paul Esswein and Randy Orvis about when and how this (the apron) gets accomplished, Tony Alcorn and Richard Maloon also questions what is it and if the board would please summarize. Hiram Watson withdraws his motion; Chairman King motions that the aprons are built prior to the issuance of the building permit(s), 2nd by Hiram Watson, no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King motions to the granting of a Special Use Permit under the Open Space Residential Cluster development off this application from Newdam Partnership, LLP of a 11-lot sub-division; conditionally approved with the following conditions as listed below:
1) State sub-division approval of 11 lots.
2) Re-grading in R. O. W. of lots 7 & 8 to be approved by road agent and outside engineering approval for sight distance only, paid for by the applicant.
(Underground utilities (which shows on the plat and does not need to be added as contingency.)
3) Selectmen's approval and acceptance of Conservation Commission Easement.
4) Side walk easement approved by the Planning Department.
5) Contingent upon the roadways being removed from the open space or an acceptable method to conform to this ordinance.
6) Copy of deed restrictions that is being proposed needs to be approved by the Planning Department.
7) Contingent upon the conservation set-aside meeting the requirement of non-buildable land requirement, to not exceed 35%; so that if you have to change the boundary line, grants you will have too.
8) Request of the TRC that was not discussed by the Planning Department, all driveways shall be paved to a minimum of 2" to the R. O. W. before the issuance of building permits.
9) Setbacks of this application as previously motioned and approved, front and sides.
Chairman King motions to approve conditions as so listed, 2nd by Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Paul Parker motions to continue for 1/2 hour more, 2nd by Troy Robidas, no further discussion, 3 in favor, 1 opposed=Hiram Watson.
Continuation of Application for Earth Excavation By: Pike Industries: To excavate 8.6 acres of the 11.90 acre parcel (Tax Map R35, Lot 7 Paulson Road).
Larry Major presents for Pike Industries with a punch list from last month meeting; those being as listed below. Larry Major handed out a couple of photocopies and referenced the mitigation sight; this photocopy shows the relation to the 2 sights.
1) Golden Environmental showing delineated wetlands preliminary; sent out a survey crew and now have a survey of the sight and have addressed some concerns from a previous reclamation of another sight as concerns from the 500 Boys and Girls Club and have followed up and believe those concerns have been addressed.
2) The wetlands application fully drafted and should be submitted to (I question which board) the Board of Selectmen or Conservation Commission. Chairman King asks Paul Esswein about the submittal of this application, Paul Esswein - give to me. He has met with Randy Orvis and Brad Anderson the only two members from the Conservation Commission that showed. And they both support the project along with the mitigation.
3) Updated and met with the DES and they are very supportive.
4) Clark Hackett has given approval of the driveway permit.
5) Ground Water Table tests pits of 04/01/04.
Tonight is to get approval from the board for this project. We will not do anything and will avoid wetlands (points to area of map) until the details are all ironed out on the permit application.
Ground water table as discussed at last meeting - floor of this plan is at 265 and drill stop at 270 and come back later to test pit to determine ground water elevations.
Chairman King opens this portion of the public hearing to members of the community to speak for or against this application.
Randy Talon from the 500 Boys and Girls Club - Larry has been great to discuss this project with them and he will be providing a letter to the 500 Boys and Girls Club on what the commitment will be and to see how the agreement on outstanding liability by Pike Industries will be handled.
Chairman King asks when that will be accomplished i.e. letter of outstanding liabilities, Larry Major wants the board to understand that this "letter" is not directly related to this project, it relates to a previous project across the street that was to happen and other parties were involved 2 years ago.
Discussion continues with the members of the board and Randy Talon regarding the paving and widening of the road as was discussed and concerns voiced at the previous months meeting the Stacy Gilman who owns a home on Paulson Road. Also the question of hauling in and out of that area was also discussed if it became a safety issue, with the end time frame of 4:00 - 4:30 p.m. Larry Major also comments that with cars parked on the side of the road and children playing in the street it would not be a good idea to be hauling in and out of that area after
4:30 p.m.
Chairman King any other questions for or against this application. Hiram Watson states that there was 1 concern from one of the landowners Marty who spoke about the road not be wide enough and the possibility of widening it a little bit. Larry Major - shows on the map the frontage they own, the cemetery land, the land that abuts is conservation land, and further down is wetlands, Chairman King - Paulson Road is a Town road. Discussion continues between board members, Paul Esswein and Larry Major on the paving or not of the road. Jonathon Oakes, Manager of Pike Industries for this area speaks about the issue of concern and width of the road and which way their trucks will be exiting the excavation sight. Paul Parker questions the number of trucks as previously estimated at 40-50 trucks per day, Larry Majors has
confirmed from the past operation in that area was around 150 trucks per day. Paul Parkers thoughts and concerns are the exiting issues onto Route 11 in the summer months, going towards Alton, both Larry Major and Jonathon Oakes comments on this. Paul Parker asks if they would have a problem making this "exiting" as part of the contingencies? Jonathon Oakes - replies does not have a problem at all. Paul Parker also has concerns about the depth of 270 below the existing ground - Larry Major replies in some areas by 15', 20', 30'. Paul Parker has concern of the possibility that they might dig down past the water level and that maybe it would be more appropriate to come up a little higher before test pits are done. Larry Major regulations state 6' above ground water. Discussion continues on this. Chairman King asks how many test pits have been done on that parcel? Paul Parker also questions what their reclamation after the dig will be, Larry
Major - will reclaim sight as we have done with all of our pits and if a buyer came that could be an option, right now it only calls for loaming and seeding; Chairman King and stabilization of grades.
Chairman King has concerns; but due to the hour; he suggests a sight walk with the road agent and the selectmen's representative or the selectmen regarding the area (he points to the map), so that the board can determine how to handle the issues, traffic issues and talk some specifics in that area as I do not feel comfortable making a decision without further discussion. Larry Major asks what the purpose of the sight is? Chairman King wants to get a feel for what is going on and familiarize myself with that area and to also have time to review the excavation regulations, to make sure that it is in compliance. Larry Major - it is. Chairman King - it is my job to insure even though you say it is in compliance.
Paul Parker is not against adding this application and motions for continuation to the Workshop Meeting of 3/15/2005 with a sight walk to take place on Paulson Road on Friday, March 11, 2005 at 4:30p.m., 2nd by Troy Robidas, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Paul Parker motions to adjourn 10:53 p.m., 2nd by Troy Robidas, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Meeting adjourned.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 04/05/2005
____________________________ ______________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
