PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Don MacVane, Jim Horgan, David Kestner, Charles Wibel,
Jason Lauze, Hiram Watson, Charlie King – called; late arrival (7:00 p.m.)
Absent: Mark Paulin, Alternate-without notification
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker – Absent with notification
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden, Paul Weston
Public Present: Peter Landry, Peter Rizzo, Jenne Abtele, Norman Russell
(please note that although the attendance sheet requests that names be printed, the public continues to write and
some of the writing is not legible therefore spellings could possibly be wrong.)
Don MacVane is acting chair and calls the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
Compliance hearing – Rizzo sub-division – Cherub Estates Phase II and Phase III.
Paul Esswein opens the discussion; he feels it is his or the boards issue to raise concerns and have the applicant answer questions since the Planning Board requested this meeting.
Peter Landry acts as representation for the applicant; first discusses the approval for Plat Phase III condition, certain aspects of drainage systems to be revised and reviewed and have asked the Town of Farmington for review. Lou Caron working for the Town of Farmington has certified that improvements have been made.
Don MacVane questions the requirements 8, 9, 10 & 11 are on Plat? Paul Esswein – yes and have been removed or taken care of.
Don MacVane also questions if Phase III other issues reverts back to Phase II – primarily concerned about the adequacy of the R. O. W. to accommodate pedestrian access to Holly Lane and Cherub Drive.
Jim Horgan comments that he and Chairman King made a site walk and they might have some slope issues to address.
Jim Horgan also questions the 5 foot easement requirement located North of Holly Lane and East of Cherub Drive; there are other spots with less than 5 feet; not very solid ground.
Paul Esswein – Phase II indications on the Plat.
Jim Horgan – drainage / culverts to be put in as a notation on the plan, regarding the walkway – no lines are delineated, the width is insufficient that crosses Holly Lane and Cherub Drive.
Don MacVane seats Jason Lauze – Alternate; in the absence of Chairman King.
Comment is made that the note is on the plan; Paul Esswein advises that the other issue has to do with having a road association.
Don MacVane questions the applicant whether the purchaser’s have been made aware of such an Association, Peter Rizzo states he maintains road and plows in the winter and will not be turning over to a road association until road for Phase III is done.
Jim Horgan comments that the residents do not feel that Peter Rizzo is pulling what he should be in the development.
Peter Rizzo – I am hoping that at the completion of Phase III, the residents will petition the Town of Farmington to take over the road.
Don MacVane – states that every one of the residents should be made aware of the association; Peter Rizzo residents are not paying anything for the association.
Don MacVane – I think there is a utility pole in a R. O. W.; Jim Horgan – comments about Phase III location – all different colored stakes around the various parcels.
Paul Esswein reads from the Deed that transfers the R. O. W.
Don MacVane – need to resolve the pole in the middle of the R. O. W.; Conservation Commission should address that issue; Holly Street and Bay Road could use some grading.
Peter Rizzo comments that he was not responsible to build cross walk, he hopes when the Town of Farmington takes over the road the easement will allow the Town of Farmington to put cross walk in. He also will work on the association, he can see the residents point about mowing the grass, but the road does get plowed.
Paul Esswein – the applicant has met the requirements for Phase III, feels the issues are around Phase II and that documents have been filed for the association, I would be concerned that the residents are under the impression that at the completion of PH III the Town of Farmington will take over the road.
Paul Weston – add comment that if you wish to have that petitioned, I would encourage you to apply prior to the end of 2005 to allow warrants are consider in January.
Peter Rizzo – I am willing to resolve all 3 issues; Association Agreement, Telephone Poll R. O. W., and sidewalks.
Paul Esswein – the issue for the Conservation Commission is not compliance issue; road agreement and sidewalk easement are a valid part of agreement as well as the 3 previous.
Don MacVane feels that the issues have been addressed.
Paul Esswein – asks if the issues have been resolved to allow the chairman to sign the plat, to move on to the Phase III, Jim Horgan agrees but has concerns.
Jim Horgan motions to accept as in compliance, 2nd Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
6:40 p.m.
Jim Horgan motions for a 5-minute recess, 2nd Charles Wibel, no further discuss, all those in favor, motion passes.
6:47 p.m.
Continuation of review and discussion of the Road and Driveway Design and Construction Standards – from previous meeting – beginning under Section II – Construction Standards:
A/ Subgrade:
Paul Esswein reads from the construction standards; questions on A-2 regarding the 6” or 12” and boulder removal; it is stated that 6” would be for roads and 12” would be for major highway that would be carrying heavy trucks.
Jim Horgan asks if there are any cost comparisons.
Paul Weston comments about the 12”, Paul Esswein replies with correct definition of 6” and 12”.
Charles Wibel talks about the sample piece of ledge on his road with 1-2 feet on roadbed and how it has cracked from the weight and feels that 12” is better than 6” – provides more cushion.
All board members agree with 12”.
B/ Base Course:
Paul Esswein summarizes.
Charles Wibel asks how the determination is made between bank run gravel and crushed gravel. Paul Esswein explains the differences.
Paul Weston – asks if it complies with N. H. Standard DOT; Paul Esswein – yes. Paul Weston – if there are specifications on these 2 variations it should be referenced in the section B/.
C/ Compaction
Paul Esswein – insures no sags or puddles.
D/ Pavement Materials
Paul Esswein – specified in paragraph 1 – state standards; paragraph 2 – I have contacted the state to assist in defining what the state uses as a mix.
E/ Shoulders
F/ Slopes
G/ Drainage
H/ Bridges
I/ Wetlands
J/ Erosion Control
K/ Utilities
Large discussion amongst the board members, Paul Esswein and Paul Weston on the locations; David Kestner offered tremendous amount of information on the requirements of utility hook-ups, locations and impacts.
Charles Wibel feels this section should use some schematic dissemination
Don MacVane seats Jason Lauze as an Alternate, since Chairman King has joined the meeting.
L/ Safety
Paul Weston feels that where publications reference a Guide, a statement should be added, “as revised”.
Paul Esswein – between L & M he noted on his copy the section of “signs” to be added.
Charles Wibel – road signage determined by E 9-1-1.
Don MacVane to Paul Esswein – Street stop signs, speed limit signs, etc. should be addressed.
Charles Wibel – once again; if there is a booklet or guide that coincides with the applicable sections then it should be referenced.
Don MacVane – also feels if we reference it we should have it.
Paul Weston – advises that there is a uniform traffic code guideline reference guide / manual.
M/ Minimum Standards
N/ Construction Supervision
Charles Wibel comments about having a hands on as relates in the Site Review Regulations and the Sub-division Regulations where it mandates that an engineer be on site.
Chairman King – past meetings on Zoning Ordinance changes incorporated; Paul Esswein not completely incorporated.
Charles Wibel – discusses the design speed versus the posted speed and how can we accomplish design roads to meet the required posted speeds.
Paul Esswein – replies that the Board of Selectmen per the suggestion of the Farmington Police Department implements the road speeds.
Paul Esswein – I did get some ideas from an outside engineering firm; Don Rhodes, Traffic Consultant of Norway Plains had a few recommendations, those being R. O. W. should be 50’ except for driveway, no real reasons why this is recommended. Collector standards 22’ versus 20’, site distance should be greater than what indicated, questions if one intersecting street is greater than 35’, there is discussion regarding the 2nd page of the chart side slope should be allowed.
Chairman King – asks about provisions for ledge counts / slopes; i.e. applicant cuts; David Kestner 2 to 1.
Discussion about cuts on ledge and options that could be written.
Paul Esswein on Page 2 of chart – Mr. Rhodes commented about the sub-base depth and width and Paul Esswein reads what those are, also states that Mr. Rhodes also recommended gravel bases for this same chart as well as wearing surface on same chart.
Discussion continues detailing gravel requirement as suggested by Mr. Rhodes.
Chairman King asks what Paul Esswein would recommend, his reply that the recommendations made are not necessarily required as recommendations have come in high.
Norman Russell – as part of previous standard, reduce R. O. W. width so as not to swath.
Under the Commercial / Industrial Driveway column included in the referenced chart Paul Weston asks if it was left blank for the addition of suggestions and directions; Paul Esswein – replies – both. Discussion continues about this section; Paul Esswein replies that he will look into some more detail on this subject.
Chairman King asks for any more discussion on this chart.
Charles Wibel – because we live in a Granite State, are we getting rid of bituminous curbing and keeping with Granite.
Chairman King goes back over Section 1/B – to include a statement of the R. O. W.
Chairman King motions to continue this discussion to the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting of October 18, 2005, 2nd Jim Horgan, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Paul Weston asks if we are going to be bringing this before the voters.
David Kestner suggests breaking down the commercial / industrial driveway column into 3 sections; (1) Residential (2) Light (3) Heavy.
8:20 p.m.
Chairman King calls for a 5-minute recess, 2nd Jim Horgan, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
8:26 p.m.
Chairman King calls the meeting back to order and wants to touch on 2 things; (1) Attorney Tim Bates Letter regarding the 10-18-2005 meeting with the applicant and (2) Randall & Donna Goslin Letter received 09-12-2005.
Chairman King recuses himself from discussion on matter (2); Don MacVane chairs and states he is not sure what the applicant would like the board to do. Surveyor did plan and driveway design and determines at this juncture without another plan I’m not sure what the Planning Board could do at this time.
Paul Esswein goes into detailed history of this application, Jim Horgan states it lacked required frontage so we made them build a road, Hiram Watson questions why they can’t come back to the Zoning Board, Paul Esswein - this is the crux of the section 3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance problem, if you don’t have frontage you must sub-divide. Hiram Watson feels that a hardship has occurred and should go back to the Zoning Board. Paul Weston suggests that Paul Esswein speak with the applicants again.
Don MacVane asks if the new road standards would help? Paul Esswein – No.
Hiram Watson – can the Planning Board make a recommendation to the Zoning Board Of Adjustment?
8:40 p.m.
Chairman King rejoins the board and turns the floor over to Paul Esswein to go over the Zoning Ordinance Amendments for the March 2006 ballot.
Chairman King questions the tabulated list that Paul Esswein is reading from and asks to the best of his knowledge if the list is complete, Paul Esswein – yes and reads through the list, some of the sections to be revised are discussed in great detail.
Paul Esswein recommends the document proposed by the Planning Board in January be used as a tool, and that the review must be complete by January 13, 2006 for posting for public review as the last day to hold final public hearing will be February 2, 2006.
David Kestner suggests breaking down the Zoning Ordinance into more manageable sections.
Jim Horgan - review and implement.
Hiram Watson – wants to vote on as a whole and then break down.
Charles Wibel – break down it’s easier.
Don MacVane – agrees
Jason Lauze – agrees
Chairman King – board is comfortable with presenting.
Paul Weston – suggests the details of the ordinance in its legal interpretations should be written in layman’s language.
Paul Esswein advises of the Natural Resource Protection Presentation to all boards on how they provide assistance will be held here in the Selectman Chambers, on Wednesday October 12, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. – meeting will be approximately 45 minutes.
Jim Horgan – questions cost, Paul Esswein – free.
Charles Wibel – televised
Paul Esswein – gave each board member a package handout of maps that were created by Brad Anderson and commented “excellent job”; next Planning Board Workshop Meeting to have full size maps available.
Chairman King – for the record there is still time left to get your application in for the training sessions offered by OSP, Paul Esswein states the meetings are a Loon Mountain this year and that I need your applications ASAP; the law series is October / November.
Chairman King states that he will not be in attendance at the next meeting and that the board should consider voting for a Vice Chair that evening.
Hiram Watson and Don MacVane simultaneously nominate Jim Horgan for Vice Chair, who declines.
Paul Weston makes a statement to the board members about the 2-seats that are open on the S. R. P. C. and asks the members to think about volunteering their time for these positions.
9:15 p.m.
Jim Horgan motions to adjourn, 2nd Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 10-04-2005
_______________________________________ ____________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
