PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – JULY 18, 2006
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Hiram Watson, Jim Horgan, David Kestner,
Absent: Don MacVane – without notification, Edward Weagle – Alternate – without notification
Stacey Gilman – Alternate – without notification, John Law – leave of absence
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Charles Wibel
Chairman King called the meeting to order at 6:13 pm and read into the record and for the viewing public the 1st Notice to the Public regarding the E-Coli that was found from samples taken on 07-17-2006 from the Town of Farmington well water and that a boil water order was implemented by the Water and Waste Water Department Superintendent Dale Sprague outlining what you should do.
Chairman King opens to the 1st order of business:
· Consideration of Request: For continuance to the Planning Board Meeting of September 5, 2006; by EquiVise, LLC (Tax Map R14, Lots 21, 22, 24 & 26 a 137-acre parcel.
Paul Parker recuses himself from the board; Chairman King read into the record the written request from TF Moran requesting that the continuance of their hearing be delayed and changed from 08-01-2006 to 09-05-2006; Hiram Watson motions to grant the request of TF Moran to delay the continuance; 2nd Jim Horgan; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
Chairman King states the next order of business will be:
· Discussion continued: From 03-21-2006 Re: Planning Board Rules of Procedure revisions.
· Discussion continued: From 03-21-2006 Re: Procedural changes in the acceptance of applications.
Chairman King turns the floor over to Paul Esswein to update the board on the change(s) to the Rules of Procedures as so indicated in the draft version handed out detailed change(s) are in ITALIC style. Jim Horgan states that he is still opposed to the suggested change, has not changed his mind from the on sought; Hiram Watson questions page 3 of 6 item R and Paul Esswein provides an explanation / definition of that item and what the specific word in question “witness” means; Chairman King next polls David Kestner for his views and David Kestner refers back to the 03-21-2006 Meeting Minutes where he stated his concerns for having the abutters come down to the Chambers for a 2nd time when they were already here the 1st time around and elaborated his concerns for this
jurisdictional acceptance, he further added that he is not in favor and that once again I’ll state, the abutters have been notified and they are here to speak for or against the application and that they should be heard and not sit here for hours only to be told to come back next month; Paul Parker adds that he also has the same concerns as have been stated several times; Chairman King adds that he feels there are pluses and minuses to implementing this jurisdictional review / acceptance and feels from the boards comments that this change is somewhat unsuccessful.
Chairman King opens the floor to the public for comment;
Charles Wibel addresses the board; (barely loud enough to hear him speak) commented on the lashing that the board took from a developer at last weeks Planning Board Meeting; spoke about Farmington Ridge Mobile Home park approvals and offered suggestions with regards to the process of the application, the length of time and further gave his opinion on how the project should have been reviewed in various stages. He suggested to Chairman King (respectfully) that he not begin the review process with comments such as I have a few issues with this project. Chairman King stated to Charles Wibel that he appreciates the comments and offers some reasoning on how he tries to review each of the applications that come before the board; Charles Wibel states that is fine but if you don’t have definitive criteria to
base your statements on then you leave open ended items; Hiram Watson offers his opinion of the Farmington Ridge Mobile Home park approvals; Chairman King interjects that the original approval had restrictions of 2-bedroom homes and that the additional 35 units had none, and under the most recent approval it has been agreed that those 35 units will not have more than 3-bedrooms.
Chairman King comments that at this time it appears the board is not receptive to this jurisdictional review change.
Paul Parker, Chairman King entertain various forms of discussion on the jurisdictional review process.
Jim Horgan uses the real world, as an example in his statement that there are pre-steps that the applicant is to follow and if that happens, it should allow the board to review and approve these applications in a timely fashion.
Once again discussion ensues in various degrees regarding the process of accepting applications.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein for his thoughts; Paul Esswein would like to have a clear definition in the Site Plan Review Regulations what constitutes a complete review; the checklists that are used were provided by S. R. P. C. and are not part of the Site Plan Review Regulations and feels that those lists are not complete; would like to see a clear check list for the minimum requirements; David Kestner suggests that a check list be developed by the board; Paul Parker asks if Paul Esswein has a check list that he favors; Paul Esswein states that the check lists that we have included too many choices; Chairman King suggests that Paul Esswein develop check lists for both sub-division and site review and we should also include check list for excavation permit requirements; Jim Horgan recommends that we table the
procedural changes in the acceptance of applications to allow Paul Esswein the time to develop such checks list for the board to review.
Chairman King states that based on the boards feelings the Rules of Procedure should not be changed; offers comments on smaller applications such as; lot line adjustments; voluntary mergers and excavation permits that typically get reviewed quickly; Charles Wibel addresses the board stating that anyone can circumvent the TRC, but there are no requirements that the board must hear the applications; Paul Esswein interjects that he will bring a check list to the next meeting; Hiram Watson asks if Paul would send that out to the board members prior to the next meeting allowing each of them sufficient time for review; Jim Horgan motions to delegate authority to the Chairman to make the determination of order on each of the Meeting Agendas and to work with Paul Esswein who will assist in creating the agenda, however
the Chairman has the final say on the order; 2nd Paul Parker; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
Jim Horgan motions to decline the jurisdictional acceptance and to revert back to the existing Rules of Procedure as last amended on July 19, 2005; 2nd Hiram Watson; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if the Department has heard anything back from the applicant Floyd Tanner or his site developer JTI and asks that either Paul Esswein or Doreen T. Hayden call the applicant and advise them that they have until this Friday, July 21st to provide the balance of the application package as so indicated from the July 11th Planning Board Meeting, if not; the board will not be in a position to hear the excavation application at the 08-01-2006 Planning Board Meeting and that the application will need to be continued to the next Planning Board Meeting of 09-05-2006.
· Discussion continued: From 01-10-2006, 04-18-2006, 05/23/2006 and 06-20-2006; Re: Subject of the expansion of the (VC) Village Center District and re-alignment of all zoning districts.
Chairman King turns the floor over to Paul Esswein to begin discussion on his developed Village Center Land Use Analysis; he indicates that he has identified all the properties in the Village Center District; gives the members of the board summary of his findings going over in detail the Excel spreadsheet that was handed out to all members; also adds that there are some parcels from the UR District that are also included in this analysis.
Chairman King asks about the total assessed value, includes questions on the “next section down” included building and land.
Board members entertain various stages of discussion regarding the summary sheet “page 4”.
Charles Wibel addresses the board and offers his opinion of what the summary sheets define and compliments Paul Esswein on doing a good job putting together this analysis.
Jim Horgan also feels that this summary looks good; however at this time we need to review the actual numbers so as to not have people’s property value skyrocket. It was suggested that David Willey – Assessor might attend one of the Planning Boards upcoming Meetings to comment on how the land / buildings are assessed.
Chairman King also notes for the record that Paul Esswein has also handed out additional paperwork entitled “Infill Incentives”; Paul Esswein states that these are concepts to consider in terms of how you can get the rezoning to happen.
Paul Parker asks to revisit the colored map as provided by Paul Esswein that relates to the Village Center Land Use Analysis; and asks several questions; he has a concern on Grove Street; that street is mainly residential; changing it to the Village Center now allows those individuals to change the use; asks Paul Esswein what his thought and process was in making this; Paul Esswein states that by having those parcels in the Village Center it would allow developers for Grove and Central Streets to develop various types of buildings, it would expand the Village Center use, add diversity and increase pedestrian circulation; Paul Parker adds counter point thought “trying to increase housing in the downtown area while you increase the business you could also be decreasing residential area.
Again the board members entertain various degrees of discussion on this topic and the colored map; Charles Wibel once again offers his opinion; Jim Horgan states that he does like definition, concerned on the tax assessment by changing residential to commercial properties; Hiram Watson indicates it’s a win and lose situation; there are 30 parcels in orange and feels that each of those individuals should receive a letter advising them to come down to a Public Hearing and that the board should give a presentation on this new vision; he does like the concept; David Kestner would like to find out how this change will effect people as far as taxes and also agrees with Hiram Watson that the people should be notified; Paul Parker concurs with David Kestner; asks if the board at this time would like to make any changes or
additions; he does pose a concern over Garfield Street; Chairman King indicates that he also has some concerns as the other board members do and also would like to see the Tax Assessor at the next meeting 08-15-2006 if possible; he stresses that before the Town Meeting we need to have “ALL” the effected residents come in and solidify incentives and be in a position to have answers to the citizens questions / concerns over why we should do this; Chairman King wants specific wording to show the citizens what the intentions of this change is; Charles Wibel again addresses the board, offers example of a McDonalds that doesn’t look like a McDonalds but a small white house.
Jim Horgan motions to continue this discussion to the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting of 08-15-2006; 2nd Hiram Watson; discussion; Paul Esswein asks for some ideas from the board on what type of incentives that people would like to see offered; Chairman King confirms that Paul Esswein would like the members of the board to provide him with some ideas, say may 3 suggestions each; Hiram Watson would like to see a Public Notice in the paper; Jim Horgan states not ready for that yet; Paul Esswein goes over the list of Infill Incentives and asks again for the board thoughts and suggestions; no further discussion; al those in favor; motion passes.
Chairman King asks if there is anything further to come before the board;
Charles Wibel has 2 things; (1) refers to having UNH doing a proposal as shown in last Saturdays’ Union Leader and (2) to seriously look at rezoning the CC and IB Zoning Districts.
Chairman King advises Charles Wibel that he doesn’t disagree with some of your points and suggests that the T. O. P. U. (Table of Permitted Uses) be revised would allow some of the suggested changes that you have made.
8:08 pm
Jim Horgan motions to adjourn; 2nd Hiram Watson; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 08-01-2006
_____________________________________ __________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
