PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – OCTOBER 4, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Jim Horgan, Charles Wibel, Hiram Watson, Don MacVane
Absent: Mark Paulin - with notification
Late Arrival: David Kestner, Jason Lauze-Alternate
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Thomas McLaughlin, Randy Tetreault-Surveyor Norway Plains, Shirley Carlsen,
Dottie Bean, Randy Orvis-Surveyor Orvis/Drew, Rodney & Yvonne Blinn,
Chuck Goss, Jason Pohopek-Pohopek Land Surveyors, John Theriault,
Mark Guilmett, Jay M. Stevens, Peter Landry, George R. Gurick, Jr., Nancy J. Gurick,
Eaton W. Tarbell, III, Debra Correia, Robert Moriarty, Bill George, Rob Real, Malcolm McNeill, Richard Lundborn-Norway Plains Associates, Mark Phillips-Farmington Ridge, Gaye Purser, Richard Maloon-NewDam,
(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.)
6:10 p.m. Chairman King calls the meeting to order.
Review and approve Planning Board Meeting Minutes of 09-06-2005; Paul Parker motions to accept the minutes as written, 2nd Charles Wibel, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Review and approve Planning Board Meeting Minutes of 09-20-2005; Don MacVane motions to accept the minutes as written, 2nd Charles Wibel, Paul Parker abstains, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King states that the nominations for Vice Chairman and Secretary are next on the agenda, however there is 1 regular member missing, so we will go on to the 2nd item on the agenda:
6:15 p.m.
Review for Building Permit Application on a Class VI Road – Scruton Road – By: Thomas McLaughlin (Tax Map R42, Lots 5 & 6):
Thomas McLaughlin present for himself; opens by discussing that lot 42 has access through 1st Crown Point Road, he has lived in the area for 40 years, he believes there is uniqueness to his property, however without knowing what the Planning Board and the Town of Farmington requirements are, he’s not sure if it is viable to purchase the land and is looking to the board to point him in the right direction as to what the Town of Farmington will require from him to enable the lot to be built upon. Mr. McLaughlin states, years ago soil testing was done however he cannot locate any records of such and realizes it will need to be redone.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein for his comments – Paul Esswein reviews the materials that he was given by the applicant.
Chairman King questions what side the applicant is planning on accessing the land, Mr. McLaughlin – through the other side of Strafford and states that there is approximately 1300 feet of upgrades / improvements that are needed.
Charles Wibel – assuming owner does not want to go ahead with the road through Strafford side where do you stand, also do you realize that there are no services to that area i.e.; Police, Fire, Ambulance; cannot access that road and that your home could burn down.
Hiram Watson – Is this Farmington Location or Strafford, Mr. McLaughlin – both. Hiram Watson questions the wetlands area and asks if there is enough upland there; Mr. McLaughlin – lot 5 looks like it has had a foundation. Hiram Watson – any streams to cross; Mr. McLaughlin – swales and culverts will be installed. Hiram Watson – have you gotten the specs on what the road requirements are; Chairman King interjects with the standards for road requirements.
Don MacVane – asks how wide of a road; Mr. McLaughlin – 10’-12’; Don MacVane – is there any R. O. W.; Mr. McLaughlin – lots are to the side
Jim Horgan – no questions at this time, but you might want to run this past the Conservation Commission for their input.
Paul Parker – comments that we have no ability from 1st Crown Point Road to Strafford side for any road requirements, as well as no access from Scruton Road.
David Kestner – asks if the electric company has been contacted to see if lines can be brought in and questions the costs of such installation, he also indicates that the ledge protrudes quite a bit in that area.
Charles Wibel – comments that just past the subject parcel there is substantial undeveloped land from the Strafford side and what would prevent access through if developments begin on that Strafford side.
Randy Orvis states that is all conservation land and David Kestner confers.
Chairman King – suggests that the applicant seek the authority from the Selectmen on this; as the Planning Board could say okay and the Selectmen could say no way or vice versa.
Paul Parker – lot 5 limited uplands, looks like from the Map, but leaves a lot to be desired.
The applicant thanks the board for their time and input and will seek comments from the Selectmen.
Nomination and election of a Vice Chair to replace Gerald “Gary” White who has resigned; also - Nomination and election of Secretary:
6:30 p.m.
Chairman King asks the board for nominations, no response, Chairman King nominates Jim Horgan for Vice Chair, Jim Horgan denies; Hiram Watson nominates Don MacVane for Vice Chair, 2nd Charles Wibel, Don MacVane accepts nomination and is officially now the Vice Chair. Paul Parker nominates David Kestner for Secretary, 2nd Chairman King, David Kestner declines – do not know enough yet, still too new. Don MacVane nominates Charles Wibel, Charles Wibel declines – too new. Chairman King nominates Hiram Watson for Secretary, 2nd Don MacVane; Hiram Watson accepts the nomination and is officially now the Secretary, all passed.
6:34 p.m.
Conceptual discussion By: Van Hertel (Tax Map R50, Lot 18) for a 4-5 lot sub-division off River Road; presented by Orvis/Drew, LLC by Randy Orvis:
This application is presented by Randy Orvis of Orvis/Drew LLC; Randy Orvis passes out tax maps to show where the parcel(s) are as well as a copy of a conceptual plan; discussion begins describing that the board is basically looking at 16.15 acres of land on River Road with 50’ of frontage, his client wants to build a road into it, the site distance on River Road is the issue, the road length is approximately 300’ and we are looking for suggestions to shorten.
Chairman King suggests / asks if this will be a voluntary merger.
Randy Orvis asks about the road specs, Chairman King advises they are being worked on.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if he has any comments; Paul Esswein assuming rear lot could be developed, unless restrictions are imposed.
Chairman King – conceptual plan conforms to our current zoning, Paul Esswein – just looking at it yes; you would need to review the topo’s and town standard builds. They do have road frontage – generally meet the requirements.
Chairman King – could use cluster development requirements.
Jim Horgan – future development worried about the back lot
Hiram Watson – no comment
Charles Wibel – same concerns as Jim Horgan
Chairman King – concerns about the sight distance
David Kestner – back lot concerns – 250’ on cul-de-sac; are you subtracting out? Randy Orvis – if road was to be extended, new lots could be developed, trying to make a lot buildable
Jason Lauze – no comment
Paul Parker – same concerns as Chairman King, on the sight distance.
Charles Wibel – what is on the 5 acre corner; Randy Orvis replies there has been work going on recently; I designed the septic system 15 years ago; Charles Wibel wondering if you could acquire some of the land next door, Chairman King – possibly picking up an easement.
Paul Parker – suggests Voluntary Merger of back-lot for access possibly, and to also think about using as a cluster development.
6:45 p.m.
Application for a 5-lot sub-division By: Peter J. / William A. George (Tax Map R31, Lot 28): Total acreage 54.66; Property located on Meeting House Hill Road in the AR Zoning District.
Jason Pohopek of Pohopek Land Surveyors presenting on behalf of Peter J. & William A. George. Jason Pohopek details each of the 5-lots and there sizes, describes on-site well and septic; test pits have been performed, proper setbacks to have been complied with, all single-family homes. Requesting waivers of Section 4.08; paragraph M: Section 4.09; paragraph H & K = wetlands: as well as waivers under Section 4.08; paragraph B and Section 4.09; paragraph H & I = topography.
Paul Esswein - There area a couple of edits due to a typographical error, R31, Lot 5 should be R31 Lot 38. Also, last fall FEMA map date change invoked, need to conform to new date.
Jason Pohopek – on 08-30-2005 met with Richard Page – Road Agent and did a complete review, he verbally okayed the driveways access for all 5-lot with the only requirement being a 15” culvert on lots 1 and 4 on the road side.
Chairman King – questions 28-2 and 28-3 no culverts? Jason Pohopek – reviewed topography with Richard Page who did not feel it was required.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein for his input on this application; Paul Esswein reads his staff report, notes that 2 errors be corrected, plan meets requirements, and note that there is a 50’ R.O.W.
Jason Pohopek - lots 2-3 only to provide access due to steep topography and wetlands.
Paul Esswein – found the application to be in compliance with all of the requirements of the sub-division regulations.
Chairman King polls each of the board members for questions / comments.
Jim Horgan – no comment
Hiram Watson – no comment
Charles Wibel – questions driveway access on 28-2 being within the 50’ R. O. W. asks if Jason Pohopek mentioned this to the Highway Department? Jason Pohopek did not show to road agent.
Chairman King questions the closest edge of the R. O. W., Jason Pohopek – 65’ to the closest edge.
David Kestner – no comment
Paul Parker – in the packet we received – test pits for only 2 lots, where are the other 3? Jason Pohopek – I have copies of all.
Don MacVane – asks if there is a building on the property? Jason Pohopek – a steel building.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if there are 40,000 contiguous sq. ft. of uplands, Paul Esswein – 28-1 lot noted, but not on other 3; Jason Pohopek – there is.
Chairman King comments that he shares the same concerns as Charles Wibel with regard to access on 28-2.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein what the driveway separation rule is; Paul Esswein reviews the ordinance for the requirement.
Jason Pohopek – I have discussed this concern with Mr. George.
7:03 p.m.
Chairman King opens the floor to the public for comments either for or against this application.
(public – did not hear citizens name) There is a path going into the field; would the path be eliminated? Jason Pohopek – the path would have to be altered, it has been a verbal agreement for many years.
(public – did not hear citizen name) Concerned about the driveways and the traffic, also what about the salt run-off in the winter months.
Paul Esswein reads the driveway separation ordinance – 20’ stated in the ordinance.
Chairman King – limiting access would be of the best interest as the road is traveled a lot, 3 and 4 could have shared driveways, 28-2 access at the 50’ R. O. W. on the corner.
Jason Pohopek – comments about access on the other side for driveway.
Mr. George – adds his comments about the road and the entire ledge.
Chairman King asks Mr. George about the public comment on the R. O. W. access to the back field, Mr. George replies that they will have to work something out.
Charles Wibel – questions if the access to the back lot that is through the R. O. W. is only a verbal agreement.
Don MacVane – asks the applicant how he intends on keeping his word to allow access to the back lot.
Bill George – they have been given a key to access the lock to enter and exit the back lot.
Paul Parker – 28-1 shows proposed well with 70’ circumference, are you using road in calculations and is this acceptable or normal?
Paul Esswein – there are no restrictions; it will be up to the Department of Health to make that determination.
Paul Parker – still concerned with well location, what about the erosion of road by salt flow at winter time, is that a concern that it could infiltrated that well.
Chairman King – application requires 2 waivers; Chairman King asks Paul Esswein to review waivers and how they should be structured.
Chairman King asks for a motion on Section 4.08; paragraph M : Don MacVane motions that we accept applicants request for waivers of Section 4.08; paragraph M as well as Section 4.09; paragraph H & I (topo’s and contours), discussion that neither will impact the wetland areas, 2nd Jim Horgan, there is discussion about a Special Use Permit be noted and the applicant is to come back to the board for review on the 28’, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Requests for waivers of Section 4.08; paragraph F and Section 4.09; paragraph H & K, Don MacVane motions to accept these waivers, 2nd Jim Horgan, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King comments that he feels the application could use some homework; Jason Pohopek comments that he has already cleared with Richard Page the road agent.
Chairman King – 28-3, 28-4, and 28-2 access points should be reviewed as well as the verbal agreement for access to the back lot.
Tom Moriarity – I have lived across the street for 29 years, I have concerns about shared driveway with the hills and curves and the speed of the traffic, I feel separate driveways would be best. Also wants to note that he has walked that path for 20 years and feels that the Georges area responsible people and will do the right thing.
Chairman King comments about the contiguous upland missing, changes to the plan regarding the origin of lot being #28, development of back lot and driveway would require a Special Use Permit to the extent that development would have to be addresses at some future date.
Chairman King polls the members of the board for comments.
Hiram Watson – prefer separate driveways.
Charles Wibel – also prefers separate driveways, find them more attractive, and will eliminate problems down the road.
Don MacVane – prefers shared driveways.
David Kestner – prefers single driveways and single lots.
Paul Parker – not too much of a concern, votes for shared driveways.
Charles Wibel motions to accept the application with mentions of back-lot access, delineations of the complete parcel and corrections to the plan as previously indicated be made, 28-2, 28-3 and 28-4 contiguous uplands, Special Use Permit lot #28; 2nd Don MacVane, no further discussion, all those in favor, Chairman King opposed, motion passes.
7:35 p.m.
Application for a Special Use Permit By: Jay & Louanne Stevens (Tax Map R4, Lot 3): Total acreage 10.65; Property known as 119 Ten Rod Road: To allow the construction of a bridge over a stream (wetlands permit applied for) to further allow access to back-lot for the delivery and installation of a 1987 2-bedroom mobile home.
Chairman King recused himself from this application and turns the chair over to Don MacVane.
Don MacVane seats Jason Lauze for Chairman King.
Jay Stevens presents for himself, advises the board that he has been before the Conservation Commission and that they have approved his wetlands crossing request.
Paul Esswein – Mr. Stevens is here for a Special Use Permit, it is a formality as he’s already built the bridge to cross over the stream to access the back lot.
Jim Horgan – also a Conservation Commission Member addresses the acting Chair Don MacVane by summarizing the Conservation Commissions meeting of 09-19-2005 with regards to this application, Jim Horgan reads from paragraph 5 build bridge versus culvert, he sees no reason to see this application be denied as it should have been taken care of 1 year ago.
Randy Orvis comments that the bridge they put in has replaced a farm bridge.
Jim Horgan motions to approve the application for a Special Use Permit, 2nd Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
7:45 p.m.
Application for a 3-lot sub-division By: George F. Sansoucy (Tax Map R5, Lots 8 and 8-1); Total acreage 20.8; Property known as 260 Ten Rod Road, in the AR Zoning District.
Randy Tetreault, Norway Plains Associates presents on behalf of the applicant George F. Sansoucy. Randy Tetreault advises that it is really a 17-acre tract and not 20.8 as indicated on the agenda. The applicant is taking the existing 2 parcels and converting to 3 parcels; 2 parcels will be 5-acre lots and 1 parcel will be 6+ acres. There is no potential for future sub-division, each lot has 40,000 contiguous uplands, there are plenty of spots for driveways, the sight distance is not an issue, mostly on the Rochester side meets the 3-acre requirement.
Charles Wibel – middle lot R. O. W. has been reserved until lot has been purchased so there is no more
R. O. W. that has been distinguished.
Don MacVane opens the floor to the public for comment either for or against the application, no comments heard.
Paul Parker asks what they will have for access, questions the test pit information/data and asks if there is an existing home in the center of the property.
Hiram Watson motions to accept application as complete, 2nd Paul Parker with conditions to be noted as previously indicated by Paul Esswein, approval for Chairman to sign noted on plat, note 5 reference lots correctly, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Hiram Watson motions to approve the application, 2nd Jason Lauze, Paul Parker asks Paul Esswein if he has any further questions, none, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
7:55 p.m.
Paul Parker motions for a 5-minuted recess, 2nd David Kestner, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
8:02 p.m.
Application for a 2-lot sub-division By: Kevin J. Shultz (Tax Map R45, Lot 2); Total acreage 19.35; Property known as 37 Dubois Lane, in the AR Zoning District:
Randy Tetreault – Norway Plains Associates presents on behalf of the applicant Kevin J. Shultz. Randy Tetreault opens his presentation by stating that Mr. Shultz has received the ZBA approval for the shortage of frontage for his sub-division. Randy Tetreault further outlines in detail the land, what was originally and is on the land and advises that the Wetlands Crossing Permit has been filed.
Don MacVane polls the public for comment either for or against this application.
Attorney Tarbell steps up to address the Chair on behalf of his applicants Nancy and George Gurick who question the survey and land boundaries; Attorney Tarbell hands to each board member a copy of a deed and indicates that the board should pay particular attention to the top which relates to Dubois Lane. The 2nd document that Attorney Tarbell hands out to the board members is the present deed for Mr. Shultz land and notes the board should review the final paragraph Exhibit “A” on the 2nd page. Attorney Tarbell notes that there is a private R. O. W. that access back land; Attorney Tarbell also defines “easement” which is a private right to use/access. The applicants do not have a problem with the sub-division; the problem is with the use of the easement which
we feel would be an over bearing use of a private R. O. W. and if be it we could take this to superior court and file injunctions against Mr. Shultz.
Randy Tetreault will not argue the fact that it is an easement; fee title documents of Mr. Shultz and comments that there is a 30’ R. O. W. on the Guricks property.
George Gurick – this land was sub-divided by this board previously; basically was a lot line adjustment to separate 1 lot into 2.
Randy Tetreault interjects that this is a civil issue between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gurick. If a major sub-division went in then yes it would burden the easement, however trying to make it to cross over Mad River is not conceivable.
Mr. Shultz – Thanks the board for their time and understands the Guricks feelings, when he bought the house only 2 years ago, his Realtor told him “NO” future development. Mr. Dubois who abuts in 2 areas is in support of this, as is Mrs. Judith Cres who I keep in constant contact with, to keep her up to date on what my intentions are. She has replied in writing (which I have here) that she has no problem with my request; she is the largest abutter to my land. Also, the R. O. W. was created to NOT cross over the Mad River. The road is 10’-13’ in width the deed refers to as 30’ for vehicular travel, again as to NOT cross Mad River. It is a road Dubois Lane. I feel that taking a 19-acre parcel and creating 2-lots is not over burdening the land, I am not asking for a
10-lot sub-division.
Mr. Gurrick comments that from his house he cannot see the R. O. W.
Mr. Shultz is willing to put restrictions on the plat indicating that no future sub-division will occur. I have spent 1-year in planning, a lot of money and plan designing. The mobile home that is on the land now is dilapidated and needs to come down.
Paul Parker interjects that the existing trailer will be replaced with your proposed new home.
Chris Edmunds (abutter) just wants to let it be know that it was a Don Jenks sub-division, no new sub-division has been created only a lot line adjustment, also that there is a major lot line dispute between myself and Mr. Shultz on a 50’ piece of land that he claims is his property.
Paul Parker – there is a disputed property line? Randy Tetreault – we are not trying to hide anything, feel that Jenks was incorrect in his findings; Randy Tetreault passes around Plan of Lands. Randy Tetreault feels this is a difference of opinion on the lot line dispute, does not affect upland; I have contacted Mr. Jenks wife to see if he had anything in his file, as Mr. Jenks is deceased.
Paul Parker asks – on the Plan of Land R. O. W. off of River Road, is that the existing driveway for Mr. Gurick; Randy Tetreault – everyone enters from the same area.
Paul Parker asks how many other lots are accessed by this point – Randy Tetreault – 2 lots; the length of the driveway is 1500 – 1800 from inception as crossing has to be less than 30’.
Chairman King polls the board members for questions / comments.
Jim Horgan – confirm the number of lots beyond the mobile home.
Hiram Watson – how many lots on private road; Randy Tetreault replies 5.
Charles Wibel – actually the road goes all the way back to River Road and as it gets developed the potential for more development from surrounding abutters could grow with a huge development.
Mr. Shultz – actually I do have frontage on River Road.
Jason Lauze – no comment
David Kestner – I would like you to go back to the Conservation Commission and get their input on the wetlands issue.
Don MacVane – agrees with David Kestner should go back to the Conservation Commission for review as well as state wetlands issues.
Question posed about Dubois Lane being accepted by E-9-1-1.
George and Nancy Gurick; 212 River Road; he understands Dubois Lane to be a private road.
Paul Esswein – has some recommendations to the Planning Board; Zoning Ordinance does require a Private Road Agreement, it also should be noted on the plan as this is a private road, waivers of municipal liability would be required in the Deed, is it in wetlands overlay crossing district water front protection of Mad River will need Conservation Commissions approval.
Mr. Shultz comments that he and Mr. Peaslee have been meeting on a regular basis, where the snow mobile crossings are, he wants to keep it that way; I do not want anything changed or re-routed.
Charles Wibel asks for clarifications on a private road, R. O. W. and would like legal(s) opinion.
Paul Parker also has legal questions he’d like answered.
Don MacVane poses the question on how we want to proceed; Paul Esswein 1st determine if the application is complete – then accept it or not, Paul Parker asks if any part should be denied; Paul Parker makes a motion to accept the application as complete, 2nd Jason Lauze, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Jim Horgan recommends that the meeting be continued after submittal of conservation commissions report.
Hiram Watson suggests getting the attorneys and the applicant’s back together to try and settle the difference of opinion on the boundary line.
Mr. Shultz comments that he is more than willing to work things out.
Charles Wibel states that he has big concerns on this road.
Charles Wibel motions to continue this application to the next Planning Board Meeting of 11-01-2005 to allow the applicant sufficient time to reply on; road maintenance agreement, private road, waiver of liability by Selectmen, several district overlays, and conservation commissions input, 2nd David Kestner, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
9:07 p.m.
Jim Horgan motions to continue the meeting for an additional 30-minutes, 2nd Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Don MacVane relinquishes the chair back to Chairman King for continuation of the public hearings still remaining on the agenda.
9:15 p.m.
Chairman King allows a non-scheduled discussion to be heard; Mr. Theriault from Cherub Estates wishes to present a letter that he has written to the board members of the incompleteness of work by Rizzo. Chairman King reads the letter into the record and advises Mr. Theriault that a compliance hearing addressed some of those concerns and would not recommend that this be on tonight’s discussion. Chairman King motions to Paul Esswein to address these issues brought forth by Mr. Theriault and to send those out to members of the sub-development of Cherub Estates and to copy to all Planning Board Members, 2nd Jim Horgan, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Jim Horgan motions to continue the meeting until 10:00 p.m., 2nd Charles Wibel, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King comments at this late hour we still have 3 applications to hear and suggests to the board members that the last application which is: Application for a 2-lot sub-division (Tax map R47, Lot 5 and Application for Site Review (Tax Map U10, Lot 41-1; By: Farmington Ridge Limited Partners be continued to a Special Planning Board Meeting to be held on 11-02-2005 at 6:00p.m. here in the Selectman Chambers; Chairman King motions to conduct a Special Planning Board Meeting on 11-02-2005; 2nd Charles Wibel, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
9:30 p.m.
Application for Site Review By: Route 11 – Ridge Road – Farmington, LLC (Tax Map R50, Lot 47-3): Total acreage 6.88; Property known as N. H. Route 11; development to allow construction of 2 (two) - commercial structures totaling 16,000 sq. ft. in the IB Zoning District located at the intersection of Ridge Road and Route 11.
Attorney Craig Salomon presents on behalf of the client; describes in detail the topography of the land, indicates that the left side is a 1-story 40x300 structure and the opposite side will be a 2-story 40x80 structure. There are no tenants as yet, the ultimate use cannot be determined, however possibly a combination of light industrial along with some offices. We are proposing 2 curb cuts; reason is primarily for access for large trucks. It is a two way, once you enter the building grounds traffic then goes one way, the 2nd entrance primarily for the eastern building. Septic systems being proposed on the south east corner of the building being designed by Randy Orvis – Orvis/Drew LLC.
Paul Esswein reads his staff review of the project, and indicates that the application is missing a few items. Paul Esswien also advises that he has concerns about the wetland impact and crossing, retaining wall, parking area is in close proximity, driveway closeness proximity is a concern.
Randy Orvis – have submitted to Randy Garland, septic system has been designed to accommodate a staff of 50.
Don MacVane – issues previously were driveways on Route 11; Randy Orvis – No; did not want commercial traffic going up Ridge Road, frontage left to access, and septic system for utilities at entrance.
Jim Horgan – concerns on character of building, should look good, sufficient landscaping going around, lighting with no glow onto Route 11 and Ridge Road, noise levels on top of the building from the AC/heating units.
Hiram Watson – concerns of on site septic; Randy Orvis replies there will be a 2100-gallon, 3 compartment system, Hiram Watson repeats 2100 gallon, 2 compartment system, and asks how Randy Orvis came up with the number of people, Randy Orvis – the state has guidelines that are used. Hiram Watson – how big is leaching area; Randy Orvis – 30 x 60; Hiram Watson – no permanent residents, Randy Orvis – no and no restaurants.
Charles Wibel – he agrees with Jim Horgan on the roof noise from the AC/heating units and concerned about the back side of the building as there seems to be no where to put an 18 wheeler. Charles Wibel and Randy Orvis have discussion about the 18-wheelers turning and pulling into the bays.
David Kestner – will there be tractor trailers going to the 2nd building; Randy Orvis – No; David Kestner – what will they be; Randy Orvis – UPS, DHL, FEDEX size trucks that can make the turn around, could be delivering to offices, David Kestner – what about landscaping.
Mark Phillips – we have very good intentions to provide good landscaping, there will be a tilt roof not a flat roof, there will not be chopped up units.
Paul Parker – I have some concerns; I agree with Jim Horgan in the character of the design, I would like to see more definitions of what the buildings are going to be, I share all the concerns of the other board members, also a concern about the driveway being across Colonial Drive; Randy Orvis stated is NH DOT.
Chairman King motions to continue this application to the next Planning Board Meeting of 11-01-2005; to allow the applicant sufficient time for more content of the plan, 2nd Don MacVane, any further discussion; Jim Horgan directs comment to Paul Esswein if he has any other questions for the applicant that they will need to address. Don MacVane wants the applicant to comeback with more definition on the landscaping, sidewalks and who the tenants might be. No further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Jim Horgan motions to continue to 10:30p.m., 2nd Charles Wibel, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
10:06 p.m.
Application for 5-lot sub-division and Special use Permit By: Jason & Jeff Buote (Tax Map R59, Lot 22); Total acreage 27.33; 3-lots to front Ridge Road, 2-lots to front Hornetown Road, in the AR Zoning District:
Peter Landry – Landry Surveying representing / presenting for Jason & Jeff Buote; Peter Landry gives details on the 5 lots to be sub-divided.
Paul Esswein – there are a couple of corrections to be made, but substantially not enough to not accept.
Chairman King motions to accept the application as complete, 2nd Paul Parker, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Paul Esswein – Flood Map Information needs to be corrected, driveways with 200’, sub-division owner for 59-9 incorrectly identified, road front calculations incorrect; should be 275.98’.
Chairman King polls the members of the board for the comments / questions:
Jim Horgan there are 4-lots over 6-acres, any desire to split; Peter Landry – No; questions Trask Haverhill Road (DTH - not sure about name).
Hiram Watson – no comment
Charles Wibel – Special Use Permit; Culverts with driveway; Peter Landry – Yes; Charles Wibel – drain properly now; Peter Landry – Yes and there are proper head walls for stabilization.
David Kestner – no comment
Jason Lauze – no comment
Paul Parker – are there test pit results? Paul Esswein – Yes and they are within acceptable limits. Paul Esswein – I have a comment / observation that it might be appropriate for cluster sub-division without any wetlands crossing issue.
Chairman King – not sure if the applicant is aware of cluster sub-division regulations and proceeds to explain to the applicant the criteria for such.
Jim Horgan – this has gone before the Conservation Commission and Randy Orvis did not feel because it is a Class III Wetland that it needed the Conservation Commissions approval.
Chairman King asks if the applicants have considered cluster sub-division.
Jason Buote – we haven’t really discussed cluster housing, wanted houses on individual lots. This is a rural area and there are cluster developments at bottom of hill that we do not feel are very attractive.
Paul Esswein - A Special Use Permit must be acted upon within 2 years, if not complete will expire. Charles Wibel asks how much review of a Special use Permit do you need.
Don MacVane motions to grant the Special Use Permit subject to the state acceptance, 2nd Jim Horgan, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Don MacVane – notes that lot 22-3 is the issue and comments that septic approval is a building permit stage, Chairman King thinks septic design approval at building permit stage.
Jim Horgan would like to see the application be contingent upon getting all approvals as required.
Paul Esswein – not septic, but corrections on the regular application; cannot find where it required a septic design to get approval for sub-division.
Charles Wibel motions to approve the sub-division contingent upon 22-3 state sub-division and the inclusions of; Flood Insurance Corrected, Proper ownership Lot R59-9 – Town of Farmington, Frontage be corrected, Reference to wetland overlay protection, driveway connections Hornetown Road and Ridge Road, 50’ R.O.W., Wetland protection overlay district, 22.5 calculation road frontage; 2nd Don MacVane; any further discussion, Chairman King motions for a friendly amendment with regard to the driveway connection and that all driveways conform to the 20’ separation; I’ll withdraw my friendly amendment, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
10:47 p.m.
Charles Wibel motions to adjourn, 2nd Paul Parker, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 11-01-2005
_____________________________________ _____________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
