PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – OCTOBER 18, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Jim Horgan, Charles Wibel, Hiram Watson, David Kestner
Absent: Don MacVane – without notification, Jason Lauze – with notification,
Mark Paulin - with notification
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Lorraine Meyer, Betty Mros, George Meyer, Betty Vachon, Bill Vachon, Joan Funk-Selectmen, Joan Doke, Terrie Nickerson-New Durham, Dorothy Bean, Mary Barron, Victor …..?, Helen Constantine, Jean P. Pease, Denis Robinson-Attorney – Wiggin & Nourie PA, Harold Peterson, Steve Mayo-EquiVise, LLC, Deborah Dietz-TF Moran, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Cavanaugh, Martin Gillman, Stacy Gilman, Norman & Margaret Russell, Paul M. Proulx-Selectmen.
(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.)
Chairman King calls the meeting to order at 6:23 p.m.
Chairman King asks if Paul Parker will be recusing himself, Paul Parker stands and states that he will recuse himself from hearing the 1st application. Chairman King then asks Charles Wibel if he feels a conflict due to statements that he’s made in the past and if he has any issues regarding this 1st application, Charles Wibel replies that he does not have any issues in this regard and therefore feels it is not necessary to recuse himself.
Conceptual discussion by EquiVise, LLC (Tax Map R14, Lot 022) regarding density matter:
Chairman King turns the floor over to Attorney Denis Robinson who presents on behalf of the applicant EquiVise, LLC. Attorney Robinson acknowledges that with him this evening is Steve Mayo, Harold Peterson, and Deb Dietz. He opens his presentation by reviewing the approximate 140 acres that they are proposing under the Special Exception that was granted to EquiVise, LLC earlier this year. One of the issues was the density of 220 units presented however currently proposed at 140 stand alone 2-bedrooms single family units to allow us to move forward. The Director of Planning submitted a letter with his analysis of what would be appropriate for this and that would be 39-units; to move forward with this project the 140 units would be required. We have figured the density with 1 ½ units per acre. There are other towns that have elderly housing units that allow more density; examples given 6 – 1-acre units; Rochester 8 – 1 acre units and Epsom which is dependant upon the closeness to
the road. This proposed development commercial or industrial use would be up to 4 types to include a store on the front, adequate buffers would be placed around, proposing a club house in the middle, there will be 2 access points from Route 11 and the majority of the open space would be to the back of the site.
Chairman King – during the last conceptual meeting and this meeting it appears that you are presenting the same plan. At the last meeting it was requested this meeting be based on clarification and the Town of Farmington staff inputs. I also have read your rebuttal to the Town and the questions that I have are centered on that.
Attorney Robinson – we are open to any questions that the board might have on the density.
Chairman King polls the board members for questions to the applicant.
Charles Wibel – the plan shows 140 units but you keep adding the word approximately, are you intending more than that? Attorney Robinson – No. Charles Wibel – can you give me the number of units proposed in the AR Zone. Attorney Robinson – 13 units.
Hiram Watson – In the IB Zone, how many units; Attorney Robinson – 127. Hiram Watson – what is each one equivalent too? Attorney Robinson – 1 ½ units per acre. Hiram Watson – what is the blue area for? Attorney Robinson – buffer area for common use.
Jim Horgan – I like the concept, I support the project, I didn’t find anything in the Zoning Ordinance that limits this development, I believe it is in the best interest of the community in terms of revenue and believes it will be cost effective. I would be in favor of supporting, a little more work on the plan, I like the concept.
Charles Wibel – divide this into 3 portions it meets the requirements. ZBA did not rezone, they gave you a Special Permit. In that 60 acres you could in reality build a 500 unit hotel or and Industrial park that would use up 20% of the density of the 60 acres, higher buildings and more traffic. I am in favor of the 140 units, but nothing above that. The infrastructure would have to support water and sewer, single units certainly would be more attractive.
Chairman King – by our Zoning Ordinance, which I’ve reviewed several times and that Paul Esswein has interpreted as well as being reviewed by our legal, I still do not agree 100% on the density issue. I do not believe that the Planning Board has the authority to determine density, I have read the rebuttal letter, which contains quite a bit of information and I’m surprised a variance was not requested.
Attorney Robinson – I might agree with you if there was a density in the IB Zone, but there wasn’t.
Chairman King and Attorney Robinson debate the density issues and refer to the aspects of the Commercial property. Rebuttals by Attorney Robinson on the approval of the ZBA and how they would not have sent it back to the Planning Board for approval. Chairman King also brings up his discussion with Russell Stoakes a past ZBA member on why he made the motion to send it to the Planning Board, according to Chairman King; Russell Stoakes replied that he felt uncomfortable with making a density call.
Jim Horgan – In order to make this work what would be required and would they have to go back to the ZBA.
Paul Esswein – The Planning Board would have to establish that they do not have the authority to establish density. Paul Esswein – reviews his discussion with the Town of Farmington Attorney and what his recommendations were. Paul Esswein further advises if you agree with my decision then they would have to go back to the ZBA, if you disagree with my decision then you do have the authority to determine the density.
Hiram Watson – With all do respect to Paul Esswein, the ZBA did give to the Planning Board the authority to determine the density, I am on the Economic Development Committee and that part of the land that is in the IB Zone for the last 4-5 years has a zero tax base, it is just sitting there idle, that parcel is not suited for Industrial Development.
Chairman King – Questions Hiram Watson on what bases in our Zoning Ordinance do you feel that we have the authority to make this determination. Hiram Watson – The ZBA gave the directive to the Planning Board and it is my opinion that we should make this decision based on the ZBA directive to the Planning Board.
Hiram Watson – Review a section of the Master Plan that specifically makes references to Elderly Housing, he comments that Farmington has the lowest tax base unit in all of Strafford County, 140 units net $420,000 per year.
Attorney Robinson – $220,000 per unit net revenue to the Town of Farmington approximately $500,000 with an approximate cost to the Town of Farmington of $79,000.
Jim Horgan asks Attorney Robinson if these units will be condos or single-family unit; Attorney Robinson – condo’s.
Hiram Watson – I took the time to go to the Tara Estates; I feel that the proposed development is far better than Tara Estates for the Town of Farmington. I like what is being presented here, I was for this before and I’m still for it now. I feel that we should make a decision on the density.
Charles Wibel – No building density % in the Zoning Ordinance, I feel that Paul Esswein sits as an advisory counsel to the Planning Board and I feel the board has that authority to make this decision.
Chairman King makes comments about the interpretation by the building inspector/code enforcement officer and makes reference to Section 1.07 A.2 in the Zoning Ordinance.
Attorney Robinson – It is true that Paul Esswein does interpret and that the ZBA is the final arbiter of the Zoning Ordinance.
David Kestner – I’ve been listening to all comments and I understand both sides of the argument, I also understand Chairman Kings comments regarding the authority of Paul Esswein, I am for the project, but I do have reservations about the points Chairman King has brought forward and I do agree with Jim Horgan on how the need to go about achieving objectives are drawn.
Chairman King calls for a vote from the board if they want to hear the public’s comments.
Jim Horgan motions to hear public comment, 2nd Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Joan Funk – Chestnut Hill Road; I would like to point out Chapter 5 of the Master Plan - 72% of Farmington Tax base is used for funding of municipal facilities. In the last decade a pattern begins with a disproportion amount of Mobile Homes brings in certain amount of income but not enough for services. This would attract households with less of an impact for schools. I’ve heard lots of comments on what a 55 age restricted development would and would not do. I have made phone calls to several communities that have age restricted and they have indicated that there is no impact to schools. I’ve made inquiries about EquiVise developments and I was informed that they exceeded their project. I feel that this board does have the ability to review the density and hope that the board will
vote in favor.
Kathleen Cavanaugh-Rochester, New Hampshire; My husband and I are retired, we live in Florida 6-months of the year and we are quite comfortable with the 55 and over developments. Presently we are ¼ of a mile from the Farmington Line, we own a very large home and we have been looking all over for something on a single floor in a nice development, as it is time to downsize. We have been as far as Stratham and that age restricted housing units start at $400,000. I feel that Farmington has a wonderful opportunity to accept this proposed development.
Jean Pease – Route 153 – My husband was an engineer at Davidson Rubber for many years, it is evident that the composition from then to now has certainly change. I feel we have a wonderful opportunity that is before us, a development such as this would be beneficial to the aging residence of the Town of Farmington. I urge you to pass this as a benefit to Farmington.
Mary Barron – I have been working on my statement for 1 month, it is canned and I will read it to the board (copy on file in the Planning Department). Mary Barron closes with “approve this project so that our children can have their grandparents in their lives”.
Bill Tsiros – I’d like to speak as a resident and as a business owner as well as being a past member of many of the Town of Farmington various boards. It has been my experience that we offer rural character to many, the residents that would occupy this development would have the time to spend in the downtown area out of the city atmosphere for a least a couple of days a week. Bill Tsiros reviews his years of experience on the Planning Board and what the intent is of the board and advises that the board must consider what that intent is, you Mr. Chairman should not have gone to the ZBA and asked questions. Chairman King rebuts, I am not restricted to ask any board member any question that I might have.
Stacey Gilman – Paulson Road- I strongly support this project, he refers to the Tara Estates and the Ten Rod Road densities that are much more difficult in design than what is being proposed here. He refers to his time on the Rochester Police Department.
Norman Russell – Chestnut Hill Road – I am not speaking in opposition or for this project. I do not believe you have the authority to make this decision. Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance only has 1 authority to make this decision – points to his land use book and asks the Planning Board Members to show him where in that book it states they have the authority. He states that Randy Orvis created the density when they were working under the ZORO Committee. He had sent a letter into the board suggesting using the abutting zone as a density for the use in this project.
7:15 p.m.
Chairman King now asks the applicant to speak.
Attorney Robinson – One final point about the Zoning Ordinance and this issue – example given; In the AR Zone 1-house on 3-acres per sub-division, we are not sub-dividing we are contemplating Site Plan of 1 use on 1 lot. It would be great to see everyone get together and resolve, I feel this is a great opportunity for the town, EquiVise has been working for 2-years on this project.
Chairman King poses a question to Attorney Robinson – Distance of time lapse; on 05-06-2005 you filed for an administrative appeal of decision by Paul Esswein, it is now October, why is it that you did not go through with that? Attorney Robinson – we felt that the ZBA directed the Planning Board to make that decision.
Jim Horgan comments that maybe Paul Esswein and legal could prepare a legal statement to insure keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman King questions need for legal opinion.
Charles Wibel motions, believing as confirmed by the ZBA that the Planning Board has the authority to set the density and move to set the quantity at 140 units of residential housing based on final approval, 2nd Hiram Watson, any discussion; Jim Horgan define quantity as no more than 1 – 2 bedrooms, David Kestner abstains, Chairman King you successfully got an exception to the Special Use, and a variance should be required. The applicant has filed an appeal and I am surprised the applicant has not appealed. David Kestner – I can see both side of the issues, I am in favor of moving forward with the density issue but concerned if it should be handled by the ZBA due to the issues that Chairman King has brought forward, no further discussion, all those in favor, Jim Horgan, Hiram Watson and
Charles Wibel, those opposed Chairman King and David Kestner, motion passes. Chairman King makes 1 further comment to the applicant; the board has agreed on approval on density and that when you make final application we will be reviewing those details.
7:29 p.m.
Jim Horgan motions for a 5-minute recess, 2nd Charles Wibel, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
7:35 p.m.
Review and discussion of Chapter 4 of the Master Plan:
Paul Esswein reviews with the Planning Board his meeting of last Thursday, October 13, 2005 with the ZAMPS Committee members, advises the Planning Board that Chapter 4 will be finished before the next workshop meeting of November 15, 2005. Paul Parker motions for this to be continued to the next workshop meeting, 2nd Jim Horgan, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Continuation of review and discussion of the Road and Driveway Design and Construction Standards:
Paul Esswein advises that he has not had the opportunity to go back and make the suggested changes as discussed in the last Planning Board Meeting. Chairman King questions if he has the entire culmination of changes, Paul Esswein – Yes. Jim Horgan motions to continue this review to the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting of November 15, 2005, 2nd Paul Parker, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Continuation of discussion; Zoning Ordinance Amendments for March 2006 Town Meeting:
Paul Esswein – The sections that were adopted last November 2004; still need to be inserted within the document; SOB (Sexually Oriented Business), Open Space and Phased Development.
Paul Parker opens discussion that portions of the site review have parking requirements and are we trying to make the determination of what has been changed since the last meeting to the voters, Paul Esswein – have not made any changes to the site review. Discussion continues referring to Page 44 (B); minimum standards for parking.
Paul Esswein believes that section should be taken out of the Zoning Ordinance and put into the site review document; every project might not fit into that. The ordinance has limits and then forces the applicant to go to the ZBA. Parking requirements established with the site review regulations.
Jim Horgan agrees to take that out of the Zoning Ordinance and put into Site Review Regulations.
Paul Parker reads from the new Site Review Regulations (page 9) and suggests that statement be added to the Zoning Ordinance.
Paul Esswein hands out a written document as examples from other surrounding towns on the back-lot developments.
Chairman King enters into a detailed discussion on the handout from Paul Esswein and suggests this be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance Section 3.00.
Jim Horgan all for the addition.
Hiram Watson questions the 3.04 Table; and a 25 acre lot in back; would that statement mean no more sub-division; Paul Esswein – yes my reading of it.
Hiram Watson again questions, “minimum lot 4 acre” here we go again; discussion continues on back-lot development. Paul Parker just change it to 3 acres; Chairman King comments that most towns allow back-lot development.
Charles Wibel – We do need to put some limiting thing on back-lot development and also a qualifier on sub-division / further sub-division to require the applicant to return to the full sub-division requirements if they want to go beyond single back-lot development, and then go back to the Table of Permitted Uses as reference. Charles Wibel also questions how far do we want to go in 2005 to address the fence height, density, zoning, beautification zoning. Under the Planning Board we can make suggestions but there is nothing in there to backfill when changes happen. If this Ordinance didn’t pass last year, it certainly isn’t going to pass this time next year with beautification addition.
Jim Horgan and Norman Russell each give their input regarding the Property Maintenance section of this ordinance.
David Kestner – I have not had the opportunity to read fully, I agree to back-lot amendment to aide continual listings of overlay districts and where you are on the overlay district, you have a listing for it but no maps.
Paul Esswein comments that wetlands very specific on the Map, only 1 large Map.
Paul Parker – last year 3.01 discussion to keep or not, maybe with the addition of 3.04 and rear lot, maybe will not need this any longer. In the Table Of Permitted Uses I feel this is a problem in the Special Exception, and feel the last line should be removed. Paul Parker suggests some zones to keep this in and some zones to completely remove from.
Margaret Russell – That line is how the gun range got to go before the ZBA, they should have asked for a variance.
A discussion between Margaret Russell and Charles Wibel ensue regarding this issue and Margaret adamantly indicates how well she knows about Variances and her terms on the ZBA.
Chairman King feels that the Table of Permitted Uses has very restrictive parts.
Paul Esswein advises the board that the trend in the Planning Departments now-a-days is to do away with the Table of Permitted Uses and leaving details up to the Site Review and meeting the zone requirements.
David Kestner asks if we have a listing of all the changes that have been made to the Zoning Ordinance.
Paul Parker also thinks this would be beneficial to the residents and would like this ready for the next meeting with the red-lined Zoning Ordinance changes.
Charles Wibel asks about a farmers protection act and states that farming is 24/7 and that abutting neighbors could have issues when a tractor is pulling hay at 4:00 a.m. and to make sure that farmers are included.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if he’s had the opportunity to meet with Ruth Scruton regarding farm protection, as she is the Strafford Country Farmers Representative. Paul Esswein advises that he will have to contact her.
Norman Russell advises that she knows that Paul Esswein is receptive to her speaking with him, however this is her very busy time of year.
Chairman King motions to continue the discussion of the proposed Zoning Ordinance change to the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting of 11/15/2005, 2nd Jim Horgan, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Chairman King discusses and summarizes the Cherub Estates letter to Mr. Theriault that was written by Paul Esswein and a copy given to each board member, asks Paul Esswein if this letter has been sent to each of the Cherub Estates Residents, Paul Esswein – No, but will send it out.
Chairman King calls for any other business to come before this board.
Margaret Russell comments that it has come to the ZAMPS attention that the agenda for their standing Thursday evenings meetings have been taken down, there is some discussion about this matter and Paul Esswein advises that it will be posted on the front door of the Municipal Offices as well as on the towns WEB site.
Paul Esswein advises the board members the Strafford Regional Planning Commission has forwarded P21 grant application and have strongly given approval to the sidewalk project on Civic and Lone Star.
Hiram Watson addresses the board in regard to the Natural Resource presentation given by Amanda Stone on October 12, 2005; he summarizes the meeting contents covering economic resources, the growth percentages and the assistance that they provide “free” to the surrounding towns. Complemented her presentation and felt it was a very good resource that the Town of Farmington should be utilizing.
Chairman King then addresses his meeting with Laurie Chasse and that Farmington is the #1 offender to the Cocheco River Pollution, Paul Esswein interjects – the 1st week in October UNH did a pollution study and have not determined if it is animals or human pollution once findings are definitive they will provide a resource for correction.
9:00 p.m.
Jim Horgan motions to adjourn, 2nd Hiram Watson, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
APPROVED 11-01-2005 WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
Page 2 - 7th paragraph; change “2-%” to “20%”;
Page 3 - 7th paragraph change wording from – “not building on % of density” to “No building density %”;
Page 6 - 11th paragraph change wording from – “do we” to “we do” and add the following wording after (division / further sub-division) “to require the applicant to return to the full sub-division requirements if they want to go beyond single back-lot development”; and to the end of the sentence “next year with beautification addition”;
Page 7 – 9th paragraph add, “make sure farmers are included”;
_________________________________________ ________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
