Town of Farmington - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/05/2005

Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/05/2005

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

TUESDAY – APRIL 5, 2005

356 Main Street – Farmington, NH

Members Present: Charlie King, Troy Robidas, Gary White, Hiram Watson, Don MacVane, and Jim Horgan-Alternate

Absent: Robert Talon - Absent

Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker

Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden

Public Present: Arvard Worster, Carol Worster, Randy Tetreault - Norway Plains Associates, John Huckins, Deborah Quisumbiny, Sue Ducharme, John D and Jean Aylard, Packy Campbell, Randy Orvis - Orvis/Drew

Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS:

Review and approve Planning Board Minutes of 03/01/2005; Troy Robidas motions to approve, 2nd by Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all in favor, motion passes, 2 abstentions = Don MacVane and Gary White.

Review and approve Planning Board Minutes of 03/11/2005; Paul Parker motions to approve, 2nd by Troy Robidas, no further discussion, all in favor, motion passes, 2 abstentions = Don MacVane and Gary White.

Review and approve Planning Board Minutes of 03/15/2205; Hiram Watson motions to approve, 2nd by Troy Robidas, discussion by Hiram Watson - page 2 of 9: 1st paragraph last line - change Goslin to Stickles. discussion by Chairman King - page 8 of 9: contingency #3 for Pike Industries - change 275 elevation to 270 elevation, no further discussion, all in favor, motion passes, 2 abstentions = Don MacVane and Gary White.

Paul Esswein discusses the 2 openings on the Regional Commissions Board and the need for 2 representatives from the Town of Farmington to join; those 2 openings need to be nominated by the Planning Board and filled by residents in the Town of Farmington. Discussion between Paul Parker, Randy Orvis and Paul Esswein regarding such nominations. Paul Parker nominates Paul Esswein for 1 of those positions, 2nd by Don MacVane, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes. Don MacVane indicates that he is a member of the Housing Coalition of Strafford Regional.

Chairman King asks when decision needs to be made on the nominations, as he would be willing as a last resort to join. Chairman King asks Jim Horgan whose not interested at this time. Paul Parker asks if other members of the planning board have time to take this on? Paul Parker motions to see if a member of another board who might not know of the availability, would be interested in accepting the 2nd position and we can take that issue up at our next meeting, 2nd by Don MacVane, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes, tabled to the next meeting.

Chairman King welcomes back and now seats Jim Horgan - Alternate in place of absent Robert Talon whom probably won't be sticking with us.

Paul Esswein - last Planning Board meeting approval to Donna Goslin was given for sub-division - Chairman King interjects that the applicant has some concerns so he now recused himself from the Chair; and indicates that Troy Robidas had presided at that meeting and should continue now. Paul Esswein - The Goslin's are requesting that they have the opportunity to remove the condition of "no future sub-division", based on the fact that the lots that have been created can not be subdivided under existing zoning, but to have such a restriction in a deed carrying forward with the potential of future zoning changes to allow such sub-division that would then not allow them the same opportunity as others in the AR District. This cannot be done tonight, but I would like to know if you would be willing to consider at the next Planning Board Meeting. Don MacVane - big stumbling block for Paul Parker, Troy Robidas agrees with Don MacVane; Paul Parker - correct and I still would have the same issue. Troy Robidas asks Paul Parker why he has such a big - Paul Parker - frontage issue is part of it; but I'm not prepared for this questioning tonight. Paul Esswein - just want to know if the board would be willing to hear her request at the next meeting, not asking for a decision on her case tonight. Troy Robidas - I would be willing to hear request and allow her to come forward, Don MacVane wouldn't we have to have a public hearing on that? Paul Esswein - yes, be put on the agenda and notify abutting property owners; Paul Parker - had asked the applicant several times if they had a problem with that and they stated no, Troy Robidas - we did not have the applicant here, she was being represented by her daughter, maybe her daughter was speaking out of turn, however isn't she given permission by her mother to speak on her behalf, they didn't have a problem with ever sub-dividing the applicant indicated they have no intention of every sub-dividing. Don MacVane motions to re-hear that fact, Paul Parker re-states he adamant feeling of that condition of statement, and I won't change my mind, Hiram Watson - we should at least hear what she has to say so I'll 2nd that motion and give them the chance to come in, Don MacVane it is not fair to have the applicant pay and re-notice everybody if there isn't a chance for her to get the votes. Paul Parker refers to the part of the Sub-Division regulations that state what make a "major" and a "minor" sub-division. Discussion continues between Paul Parker, Troy Robidas, and Don MacVane on the sub-division requirements and stipulations. Don MacVane reminds the members that if the applicant does want to sub-divide in the future, they would have to come before the Planning Board if the Zoning Ordinance changes. John Huckins - public adds comments to discussion about how the Town of Barrington has had to deal with such comments and how it has been challenged in court and is not binding and cannot enforce. Paul Esswein has checked with the Town of Farmington Attorney and as long as the party agrees to that stipulation than it can be a binding condition, and the applicant did agree to it at a Planning Board Meeting and they are now asking for reconsideration. Paul Parker argues the reason for such stipulation is that the applicant could be qualified under the minor sub-division, if that is taken out then you must consider them and all the other additional requirements for a major sub-division, Hiram Watson asks - just for 2 lots - Paul Parker - because of the road. Troy Robidas discusses the road and asks if that is an issue, he believes; when that was put into the subdivision regulations it was to insure that incremental sub-dividing not be done to avoid all other requirements. Based on the current zoning and what the applicant is showing us, I do not believe there are big possibilities for future sub-division. Don MacVane - there is a motion on the floor and a 2nd, Troy Robidas to re-hear; Don MacVane - call for a vote; Troy Robidas - yes; All those in favor of that motion, 1 opposed = Paul Parker; motion passes.

Troy Robidas re-seats Chairman King 7:21 p.m.

Chairman Kings asks if there is any new business to come before the board?

Hiram Watson would like the ZAMPS Committee to make available the questionnaires/surveys in the Planning Department - I have not been able to get them as yet. Chairman King - asks Paul Esswein who responds that we do not have the questionnaires, we know what the questions were, but don't have the actual questionnaires. Don MacVane - you mean the responses - Paul Esswein - yes and I would have to get them from the consultant or who ever did the survey. Chairman King suggests that we should request those surveys if they are no longer needed and if they do need them to let us know when we might receive them, Paul Esswein - or make copies of them. Gary White asks why they are needed; Chairman King - It is a request made by Hiram Watson several times to which he still has not gotten what he's asked for and also supporting information for the Master Plan

and should be kept on file here. Hiram Watson has seen the results of the survey and wants to see the written questions. Paul Parker - questions if Hiram Watson asked Paula Proulx or Ernie Creveling for copies, Hiram Watson - no, I get unfavorable response when I ask.

Chairman King asks for any other business.

Hearing no other new business Chairman King - motions for a 5-minute recess, 2nd by Gary White, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes, 7:25p.m.

Chairman King recalls meeting back to Public Hearing session 7:30p.m.

1) Conceptual discussion by: Jeff Poulin for sub-division (Tax Map R48, Lots 2 & 3):

Applicant or representative did not show

2) Initial Phase discussion proposal under Zoning Ordinance 3.01 - relationship to lots By: John David

Aylard to allow 2 primary structures on 1 lot without sub-dividing (Tax Map R58, Lot 007):

The applicant passes out copies of a drawing showing his idea of how the structures layout on the referenced

parcel. He is here because he'd applied for a building permit under section 3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance and has been denied such a permit for not meeting the dimensional requirements. The applicant also wants to state that he's here to show that his situation meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance. ThgeThe zoning ordinance for the AR District has a 3 acre minimum lot size per dwelling which the applicant has sufficient acreage, but also requires frontage of 250' per dwelling units for which the applicant has 450' of frontage being short 25'. The applicant indicates to the board that each lot would be 4.75 in size, which is a 63% larger than the minimum requirements. His mother and father own the land and his desire for this 2nd dwelling is to allow him and his wife not only home ownership, but also positioned to take care of his parents as they age and he further understands through discussions with lawyers that this code was designed for family members in theory give land to siblings and/or children. His concept for a driveway would be 20 foot wide and would end with a large loop, he has applied for his dredge and fill application, his septic has been approved and once again, it would be easier for him to take care of his parents as they age and require assistance.

Chairman King - Being that you are on the Zoning Board, 3.01 is interpreted differently. Selectmen have challenged the interpretation, current interpretations are that all dimension requirements of lot are met. Paul Esswein - reads and discusses with the applicant and board members the wording and requirements as stated under 3.01. Chairman King also comments that the proposed zoning language to change 3.01 has not passed, due to some bad wording of the warrant article.

Paul Parker asks the applicant why are you here? John David Aylard - I want a building permit to be allowed to build 2 houses on 1 lot. Paul Parker - that needs to be applied to the ZBA, not the Planning Board. The applicant replies Paul Esswein sent me here. Paul Esswein - at the time the issue of a driveway sufficing for use, as frontage had not been defined, with recent decisions by the ZBA you know what the ordinance interpretation is.

Don MacVane - What are the applicants options - Paul Esswein - he can sub-divide by creating the extra 50' of frontage by the creation of a hammerhead. The applicant and the board members discuss in further detail his driveway options, and suggest that he obtain a variance through the ZBA. There are questions posed to the applicant on the reasoning behind a dredge and fill application as well as discussions on other options before the applicant from various board members. Discussion about the expiration of his Septic design system of 09/2005 and his desire to have this approved and started before his time runs out.

Don MacVane asks what the rest of the board thinks? Chairman King - personal opinion I think is just another reason why one time back-lot development should be allowed. Several of these have come before the board since the frontage by the Zoning Ordinance was changed from 200' to 250' feet and many of these lots were planned for future development at purchase time, and I feel that the board should have someway to be reasonable without having a full blown road put in for one house, but under current zoning that is what we end up doing. Chairman King suggests as was previously suggested the applicant should apply for a variance, Paul Esswein - to apply for a variance the applicant must demonstrate a hardship, which I do not believe he can. The Planning Board could waive some of sub-division requirements and also could establish a lesser standard for these roads, with a minimum R.O.W., but the improvement of the road probably doesn't have to be up to the standards. There is further discussion amongst the board members as to the specifics of the road requirements, Chairman King interjects that he does not believe that the board needs to discuss all the specifics of the application and thinks if the board is comfortable with giving some considerable waivers regarding that proposed road, that the applicant can come up with an engineered plan that fits the land that he is proposing it on. Jim Horgan - Get all the waivers in writing individually and completely and present those to the board.

Chairman King - Depending on what is out there, the applicant may want to come in with a hammerhead or some other plan with his reasoning's why it is to be done that way, if the board tells the applicant what they want, and then it might not be in the best interest of what is out there and the application. As Jim Horgan summed up we expressively consider reasonable waivers regarding that infrastructure as required by the Sub-Division Regulations and come up with a plan that would address that. Chairman King asks the applicant if he has any other specific questions? Jim Horgan interjects to the applicant to make sure before he walks away that he is in full understanding of where he stands.

Hiram Watson asks what the applicant prefers. The applicant - in a nutshell bottom line net would be the house with a building permit and indicates to the board his desire to pay for the house himself and not have a bank attached to it however, with inflation and large personal medical bills that has now become unfeasible, which has caused a hardship on him already. I am looking to build a house so that I can live in Farmington. This cul-de-sac seems outrageous in my opinion; I feel that is a miss-use of land. I have showed you a plan that allows me to put a house out back, nobody can see, it's not interfering with anyone, it is 800' off of the road, can't see neighbors. Jim Horgan - you would be suggesting that you would submit a waiver; John David Aylard - If that is what I need to do to get a building permit. Chairman King - Before us we cannot waive the footage requirements, so if you want to sub-divide than you must generate the frontage by a property line on a road as designated by the sub-division regulations, during that sub-division request you want to request a waiver to not put in a cul-de-sac, not put in a hammerhead but to have a reasonable access and also generate the required frontage by the Zoning Ordinance than that is what you should apply to do. Whether the board accepts, which I feel they are willing to consider being reasonable but the board cannot give waivers to the zoning ordinance. If the interpretation is that you do not have enough frontage than you need to get relief from that requirement through the ZBA or you sub-divide to generate the frontage and the board could then lower the standards based upon that application. Chairman King - I hope that answers your question, John David Aylard - not really. Jim Horgan feels that the applicant should make an appointment with Paul Esswein and spend sometime discussing the interpretations and go through some options.

Chairman King - any further questions - Paul Esswein - Am I hearing that you would consider relaxation of the road standards in consideration of this.

Elaine Aylard - asks for clarification on not going before the ZBA and coming before the Planning Board with some type of plan. Chairman King - relief from the Zoning Ordinance cannot be administered by the Planning Board, however if he applies for a sub-division then he would come back before this board and explains further what the formality would be.

Conceptual Discussion for a proposed 2-lot subdivision By: Sue Ducharme (Tax Map U06, Lot 77) property known as 6 Freedom Drive

Randy Tetreault makes the presentation on behalf of the applicant Sue Ducharme who also sits in for discussion and clarification of her conceptual review. Randy Tetreault hands out sketches to the board members, Paul Parker asks if this is conceptual - Randy Tetreault - yes, this is what Sue wanted, so that when she goes before the ZBA she can say she met with the Planning Board. It was thought that this lot is 1 acre as the deed reflects; the deed refers to rods and such as a 1-acre lot however Randy Tetreault found that the perimeter survey is short 480 sq. ft. short of an acre, she has the room, has the frontage, has the physical attributes to create the building area and the parcel does have municipal water and sewer. Jim Horgan - 1 lot conform, 1 lot non-conforming;

Sue that is our intent, depending on what the ZBA says. Lot was purchased in 1979 - Elm Street was Elm Street which is now considered Route 75 and what was Riverside Drive which is now Freedom Drive was a private road, lot has 460' feet of frontage, a reasonable person would say that I've lost about 460 square feet; 1-foot at a time along that 460' of frontage so that actual use of the 1-acre has not changed at all, it's sort of a mathematical loss as the roads have changed my acre has changed. Sue Ducharme goes into greater detail about her parcel of land, the intentions of the zoning ordinance allowances, the bonus of picking up density versus sprawl. Hiram Watson - different numbers on this than what Randy Tetreault handed out - Randy and Sue both comment those numbers were taken from the Tax Map, he also asks how close are you to the river? Sue Ducharme - there is an abutter between her and the river, she is not sure what her abutters distance is.

Chairman King questions the 900' triangle - Randy Tetreault - If she gets the variance she will have to come back before the Planning Board, so what we were trying to do is to use as a hinge to come up with .5 acres to make lot conforming, Chairman King - this is the lot that is going to be generated so you wanted to make this conforming, Randy and Sue - indeed yes, so that is why showing 900'. Sue Ducharme - I would prefer to see it in that 90-degree angle step rather than in the triangle. Chairman King - consensus is there are no major issues besides you having to obtain a variance. The applicant thanks the board for their time.

Conceptual Discussion for a proposal of a 3-lot subdivision from an existing 6.9 acre parcel into 3 - 1.5 acre lots By: Arvard & Caroline Worster (Tax Map U1, Lot 9) property at Central & Hancock Streets.

Randy Tetreault - Norway Plains presents for applicant - fairly lengthy boundary survey over the last couple of years to figure out Mr. Worsters land. 7-acre parcel that they purchased that sits behind their existing home off of Central Street - Town side of Fernal Park. As most towns people know, back in the 50's the Army Corps came in and did Flood Work on the Mad River & Cocheco River from previous flooding and that is when they built a dike along the Cocheco and re-aligned Mad River and grated, do not get confused by the lines showing flood zone easements, those were left by the Army Corps of Engineers if they had to go back in and do work. That parcel of land does not lie within 100' of flooding as designated by the new maps. It has been looked at for jurisdictional wetlands and there are none. Soil conditions are good. Frontage is satisfied on Hancock Street and accesses all 3 parcels from a shared driveway that will be privately maintained by the 3 homeowners, this does meet all the zoning requirements.

Jim Horgan - Seems we can make it work

Hiram Watson - Only frontage is 33' on Central Street

Don MacVane - No questions

Chairman King - Assuming that power will have to be brought in, there is on-site septic that will be servicing 3 homes, there will have to be easements for maintenance of that and I'm not sure if the board is going to want underground power? Because there is only 3-lots we don't want to waive the road standards down to far. Randy Tetreault already spoke with the owners about that. They want to make sure that they can get access to those 3-lots. We have talked to Dale Sprague about the access of those utilities not being a problem. Chairman King - if it's going to be a private road than a private road agreement will be needed, waiving the Town of Farmington of liability plus reasonable infrastructure - whether that be paving or other items the board decides.

Gary White - thinks it could work

Troy Robidas - no problems with it, thinks it can be done, meets all the requirements. Asks if they own the street frontage where the river actually touches the street, Randy Tetreault - if you look at 3 rods, the actual riverbed could be owned by the Worsters.

Paul Parker - length of the proposed driveway - approximately over 150', that is why we went with a 20' wide. Randy Tetreault - measures from the map at 350', Paul Parker your showing 20' feet but you actually have a 33' R.O.W., Randy Tetreault - 33' opening - he thinks light engineering might have to be done as he's discussed with the Worsters, to insure the grade can be met. Chairman King - a maintenance agreement could possibly be required out to that 33' foot R.O.W., to make it doable. Chairman King -turns over to Mr. Worster - who discusses his conversation with PSNH, and they advised it would only be a 1-2 pole and thought that would be the best way to go.

Randy Tetreault - State sub-division approval will be gotten for all 3-lots.

Chairman King - This concludes the conceptual portion of the meeting - now on to the Public Hearing portion.

1st we will review each application for it's completeness, once it has been determined that all applications complete we will then accept them as complete and the ones that are not accepted as complete will be continued to next meeting, those that are complete based upon our time table we can start those deliberations.

We will now open this to Paul Esswein who has reviewed these applications and submitted his staff reports, Paul to start at the top with the 1st one being

Application for sub-division / lot line revision by: Gary &* Roxanne Pageau (Tax map U6, Lot 111) property known as 28 Green Street and Frances E. Pageau Revocable Trust (Tax Map U6, Lot 97) property known as 29 Water Street.

Paul Esswein - Reads his Staff Report that details for the record when the application was submitted, when the public hearing was scheduled, when it was noticed in the paper, when the abutter notices were sent, when the TRC reviewed the project and their determination, this report also includes all the specific details of the proposal, what parts of the ordinance it complies with and 4 items to be waived (1) don't show where / how utilities service house, but they are already there, does not seem to be a big issue (2) sub-division requirements say there has to be a statement of work required on an existing street meet minimum standards "this is an existing street" (3) there are not any contours on the sub-division plat showing drainage but there is nothing there that is going to effect the existing drainage (4) as well as the soil data as it is on town water and sewer; the staff recommendation is to waive those 4 requirements and to accept application as written.

Don MacVane makes that motion, Chairman King asks what that motion might be, Don MacVane - the 4 items that are not on the plan, and accept the application. Chairman King reminds the board members that tonight we are going to accept all the applications that are complete first and then go through the subsequent review of each accepted application. Don MacVane - were not going through individually - Chairman King - correct.

Paul Parker motions to accept plan as complete, 2nd by Don MacVane, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Application to construct 2 building additions; 1=20'x60' office space; 2=40'x80' expansion of existing shop by: Three Phase Line Construction (North South Investors, LLC (Tax Map R20, Lot1) property known as NH Route 153.

Presentation by Pete Johnson and Randy Tetreault

Don MacVane - motions to accept this application as substantially complete, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, Paul Parker #3 - no maximum water delivery capacity - Randy Tetreault is not clear on that and will have to talk to Paul Esswein about that, Chairman King asks any further discussion, hearing no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Application for 2-lot sub-division for a 3-acre lot from an existing 15 +- acre lot by: William Rodgers (Tax Map R10, Lot 6) property known as Reservoir Road

Don MacVane motions to accept this application as substantially complete, 2nd by Troy Robidas, Chairman King asks any discussion, Paul Parker questions the set-back lines for sub-division and also the locust map site boundaries, Randy Tetreault replies - can make both better; any further discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes, application is accepted as complete goes for subsequent review.

Application for Site Review by: Packy's Investment Properties, LLC (aka: PIP, LLC) to allow the addition of 3-units to an existing 9-unit multi-family making overall 12 rental units (Tax Map U6, Lot 117) property known as 15 Summer Street.

Chairman King - is there a representative here for this? I did see Packy here earlier. Chairman King makes a motion to continue this application until the applicant is present, 2nd by Paul Parker, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Application for 2-lot sub-division by: Virginia A. Huckins (Tax Map R16, Lot 7 and 7-3) property known as 111 Chestnut Hill Road.

Randy Orvis - Orvis/Drew presentation - This should be a lot line adjustment.

Paul Esswein - I did not do a site staff review on this application, but the notices to abutters, and the paper were done, basically reducing a lot that was approved back in 02/2004; in reducing it's size but still in conformance with the district zoning requirements. Approved a 2-acre lot in 02/2004, which they are now taking 1-acre off of it and leaving it a 1-acre lot, retaining the land on the original parcel. Paul Esswein the application is complete.

Don MacVane motions to accept the application as complete, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Don MacVane - Mr. Chairman - Since Mr. Orvis is already here and ready to roll can we just hear this application, Chairman King makes that motion, 2nd by Don MacVane, Chairman King will preside on this lot line adjustment as presented by Mr. Orvis representing Virginia A. Huckins and turns the floor over to Randy Orvis.

Randy Orvis gives an overview of what has happened since they did this sub-division last year and how it was represented and why they wanted to sub-divide this property.

Paul Parker remembers previous discussions on doing a special waiver because of the IGO that was in place at the time and concern that it was coming out of a large piece and still had a whole lot of land that could be sub-divided and that the IGO made a special waiver granted because of the IGO being in place at that time. Randy Orvis - that is correct as the remainder has potential for future sub-division. Paul Parker asks which lot they are trying to reduce - Randy Orvis - lot 7-3 is the lot; Tax Map R16, Lot 7-3. Still have 40,000 sq. ft. of uplands, Don MacVane - no waivers, legitimate lot, just a lot line adjustment, no sub-division, Randy Orvis - taking a 2-acre lot and making it 1-acre and taking 76 acre lot and making it 77 acre.

Don MacVane makes a motion to accept this as presented and approve it, 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, Paul Parker - it meets all set-back requirements and dimensional requirements, some discussion ensues with Gary White, Chairman King and Randy Orvis, Chairman King - questions the lot line adjustment of 40,000 sq. ft. isn't somewhere in our ordinance a 10,000 sq. ft threshold, I might be mistaken, Randy Orvis - that 10,000 sq. ft. threshold means approve it without going through what we are doing now. No further discussion, all those in favor, motion pass.

Application for Site Review by: Application for Site Review by: Packy's Investment Properties, LLC (aka: PIP, LLC) to allow the addition of 3-units to an existing 9-unit multi-family making overall 12 rental units (Tax Map U6, Lot 117) property known as 15 Summer Street.

Chairman King - Mr. Campbell is now present - originally missed his turn in line - so now we will now review your application as to it's completeness and by the proceedings that we have adopted tonight move forward.

Chairman King makes a motion to preside on this application, 2nd by Don MacVane, any discussion, no further discussion, we will continue with the application for site review by Packy's Investment Properties, LLC.

Chairman King turns the floor over to Paul Esswein for his staff review report for completeness;

Paul Esswein - Reads his Staff Report that details for the record when the application was submitted, when the public hearing was scheduled, when it was noticed in the paper, when the abutter notices were sent, when the TRC reviewed the project and their determination, this report also includes all the specific details of the proposal and the staff recommendation as substantially complete, meets all the requirements of the site plan review and the zoning ordinance with the exception that it doesn't have any on-site waste storage or disposal indicated on the plan, it does not contain any landscaping plan or a plant list as required by the site plan review regulations, there are not building elevations submitted, the requirements for the site plan review regulations for driveways within 200' of this project be identified on the plan which are not there and a written engineering report indicating projected run-off be submitted. Paul Esswein recommends the application is substantially complete, but there are a few things that are missing and will leave that up to the boards discretion whether they should be included. There is discussion between the board members about what has just been presented.

Don MacVane makes a motion to accept the application as substantially complete, 2nd by Hiram Watson, any discussion, Paul Parker - I agree with Don - the 1st item waste storage and maybe landscaping plan that are minimal, but the building elevation and the plan not identifying all the driveways within 200' as a requirement, if it is not there I don't know how you can say it's complete, Troy Robidas - just trying to catch up - is this more units in the building or are you building a separate building - Paul Esswein - separate structure; Gary - good; Don MacVane - pictures have been submitted about this building; Jim Horgan discusses……..any final discussion on the motion, hearing no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion as accepted as substantially complete; 4 in favor; 3 against = Paul Parker, Troy Robidas, Chairman King; application is accepted as substantially complete.

At this point all applications have been review and accepted, we have presided on the lot line adjustment, so at this point we now start back at the top.

Paul Parker makes a motion to hear Pageau case, 2nd by Don MacVane;

Randy Tetreault who presents in greater detail - for Roxanne and Gary Pageau and Frances E. Pageau for the lot line adjustment and a sub-division: Some discussion ensues between the members of the board and Randy Tetreault on various topics of this application.

Chairman King - goes over check list requirements from Paul Esswein of 4 items to show on the plat: (1) existing utility service of water and telephone (2) sewer line location, (3) statement of work required on existing streets, (4) contours and method of storm water drainage. They are not promoting any type of development, clearly is a change in the lot line and ownership.

Don MacVane makes a motion and agree with the Town Planner that these 4 items are not applicable to this situation, 2nd by Gary White, any discussion, Paul Parker questions municipal water and sewer; no further discussion, all those in favor of the 4 items not being applicable to this application.

Don MacVane makes a motion to accept the lot line revision as presented (Tax Map U6, Lot 97), 2nd by Troy Robidas; any further discussion; no further discussion, motion passes on lot line adjustment.

Don MacVane makes a motion to approve the sub-division as presented; 2nd by Troy Robidas, any discussion, Chairman King - friendly amendment contingent upon state sub-division approval, Randy Tetreault - you won't get it in this case Charlie because of water and sewer; no septic; only for lots under 5-acres with on-site septic, Chairman King - so it wouldn't even apply in this instance, Randy Tetreault - no; Chairman King - withdraws his friendly amendment, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor of accepting 2-lot sub-division by Roxanne and Gary Pageau, motion passes unanimously.

Next on the list: Three Phase Line Construction presentation by Randy Tetreault,

As Paul Esswein stated earlier original site review was done in 1999; Randy Tetreault talks about the significant changes that have taken place since 1999; those being the new intersection at Route 11 and Route 153 that was developed and the impact upon Three Phase Line Construction. Randy Tetreault reviews the narrative that was presented at the time of the application as well as the easement that was previously created.

Chairman King requests Paul Esswein discuss items on his list; (1) landscaping - initial review the towns ordinance has changed and requirements are now that any additions greater than 25% of the gross floor area requires that the new project conform to the new landscaping requirements, basically trees and vegetation off the front of the lot, this will be between the building and 153 for trees and shrubs; (2) parking in front of the building - refer to table 2.08 special considerations by the commercial center - sides and rear parking; (3) water report - supplied (4) building elevation.

Chairman King - how many parking spaces in 1999 - Randy Tetreault - 8 now; same distance across front then and now which includes handicap; the one issue is parking which is part of the zoning, but does not fit into this application.

Chairman King - opens to public and board members for questions;

Paul Parker - any problems with run off in the rear or encroachments - Pete Johnson - nothing that he's aware of.

Troy Robidas - back maintenance areas doors showing - Pete Johnson replies doors are on side, 4 big garage doors on each side of building.

Chairman King - any test wells to check and maintain - Randy Tetreault - o originally before site was built on parcel when Gordon Tibbetts owned - no test wells now.

Chairman King asks Paul Esswein about the aquifer protection zone, Paul Esswein - is not, but is in wellhead protection area to well #2, but not currently being used.

Parking spaces should be shown/designated. Paul Esswein would like to see it comply with

Chairman King motions to continue to next Planning Board Meeting of 05/03/2005, 2nd by Don MacVane, any further discussion, Hiram Watson the E.C.D. is working with the beautifications by Cameron's at the Sarah Greenfield Business Park, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Gary White motions to extend by 1/2 hour more, 2nd by Don MacVane, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Chairman King motions for a 5 minute recess, 2nd by Gary White, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Chairman King calls meeting back to order at 10:10p.m.

Next on the list: William Rodgers sub-division presentation by Randy Tetreault - This is a 15-acre; Tax Map R10, Lot 6 to separate a 3-acre lot out of this 15-acre parcel and leave 11.28-acre. They do have the required frontage on Meaderboro Road but not on Reservoir Road; there are wetlands delineated, soil has been tested, and there are 40,000 sq. ft. of contiguous land, very good site distance in both directions.

Don MacVane questions the Locust Map same lot number all around, Paul Esswein has one but not a big deal, set back lines if applying for Building Permit have to meet set back requirements.

Troy Robidas - showing 40,000 upland - Randy Tetreault will show in note form on which plan.

Paul Esswein - should be a statement - lots maintain minimum requirement

Jim Horgan - On page filed

Paul Parker - questions numbers on plan, what is building - Randy Tetreault - old pasture wall

Chairman King - proposed drive - Randy Tetreault at the TRC, Clark Hackett indicated site distance okay, no permit until proposal is approved.

Jim Horgan - driveway location on plan

Chairman King - is showing on plan

Chairman King - opens to public

Chairman King - pending state sub-division approval plan with added note of 40,000 contiguous feet.

Hiram Watson motions to approve the 2-lot sub division with state approval and 40,000 sq. ft. design on both lots, 2nd by Don MacVane, any questions, Paul Parker - has potential for future sub-division, 86 ft on Reservoir, sufficient frontage on Meaderboro Road, Chairman King - not a means for concern, no further discussion, motion passes.

Next on the list: PIP, LLC - Packy's Investment Properties - Packy Campbell Presents

Looking for conditional approval would like to be home with wife, kids and dog next month and will bring in these pressing conditions in to the office for Paul Esswein in a few weeks. He is willing to add items 1, 2 and 4 to be added to the plan with the landscaping plan, meet with the planner and give the written engineer report with building elevations as required. The applicant indicates that he prefers not to pay for tenants trash, prefers to tell tenants where dump is, how to buy bags and how much they cost, he's had dumping issues in the past where people just fill up the dumpsters on site and he would prefer that to not be a condition. There are mature maples on the property, which he is making every effort to keep, he will review the parking spaces, however some of the trees might be in the way. Space bulk requirements allow modification, I'm not asking for that allowing, I'm asking for you to allow me to have this approved as designed. I think parking spaces in front of the building make a lot more sense; I'd like to maintain a lawn in the burm and access to the river, not being pervious surface, I am resistant to the recommendations of the planner although I understand they are genuine

and where they come from, but I don't really want to change the structure and move them forward. I ask the board not to endorse the recommendations of the planner, although I think they are worthy, but not value.

Chairman King opens to the public to speak for or against this application- Mr. Worster asks what it is Mr. Campbell is doing, Chairman King - 3-unit expansion and my question to Mr. Campbell is you are proposing it as a 3 additional apartments or 3 additional condos' what is it you are proposing? Mr. Campbell answers Chairman Kings question in detail and states that there is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Hiram Watson - motions to continue for 15 minutes, 2nd by Don MacVane, any discussion, Chairman King - discusses I am not in favor of continuing this application because the issues of this application cannot be resolved, because to do this correctly we are not going to get it done in 15 minutes, we should continue this to allow the applicant to comply with the stuff he is missing and speak to the town planner regarding any other issues and address it at the next meeting, any other discussion, Paul Parker would support that, Hiram Watson doesn't feel he's missing that much and we should move forward, Don MacVane, there is a motion on the floor and I've 2nd it, we've discussed it, now we need to vote on it; any final discussion, hearing no discussion, all those in favor 3 = Hiram Watson, Troy Robidas, Don MacVane, 4 opposed = Jim Horgan, Gary White, Paul Parker, Charlie King- motion fails; Chairman King makes a motion to continue this to the next meeting of 05/03/2005 to give the applicant time to resolve some of the issues such as drainage report, 2nd by Paul Parker, any discussion, no further discussion, all those in favor, Don MacVane and Hiram Watson opposed, motion passes,

Applicant Packy Campbell asks if he'll be 1st next time, Chairman King - typically last application goes 1st next time.

Chairman King asks at this point if there is any other business to come before the board; Paul Parker questions the Vice Chair position; Chairman King - to the next meeting of 04/19/2005 workshop session. Paul Parker motions to add to the next meeting, 2nd by Chairman King, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.

Chairman King - The only other item is the meeting tomorrow night 04/06/2005 on the Flood Plain Amendment and discussion on the special town meeting and adding to the warrant article.

Don MacVane motions to adjourn, 2nd by Troy Robidas, no discussion, all those in favor, motion passes, meeting adjourned 11:00p.m.

APPROVED AS WRITTEN 05/03/2005 WITH CORRECTIONS (NOTED IN BOLD) TO PAGE 5 OF 13; TEXT LINE 24 - CHANGE 460' TO 460 SQUARE FEET. ALSO TEXT LINE 32 - CHANGE 5 ACRES TO .5 ACRES.

___________________ ______________________

Charlie King, Chairman Date

Farmington Planning Board