PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – AUGUST 15, 2006
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Don MacVane, Hiram Watson, Jim Horgan, David Kestner,
Edward Weagle – Alternate
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: David Wiley, Assessor
Chairman King called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm
Chairman King opens the meeting by advising the members of the board that the Planning Board was mentioned at last evenings Selectmen’s Meeting by Norman Russell who spoke negatively regarding the boards performance and provided each Selectmen with various documents that had certain statements highlighted (copies were handed out to each Planning Board Member) and that now the Selectmen would like to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Board; Chairman King indicated that he had spoke with the Chair –Selectmen Paula Proulx and she advised that a decision on the time has not been decided on as yet.
Chairman King polled the board members to determine if they felt that the Planning Board should to a Selectmen’s Meeting or that the Selectmen should come to a Planning Board Meeting; it was suggested by Don MacVane that the Planning Board Members attend a Selectmen’s Meeting; Chairman King indicated that he will convey that to the Selectmen.
Chairman King seats Ed Weagle for John Law and states that there are 1 full time and 2 alternate positions available on the Planning Board; A member stated that Ed Weagle as the senior alternate could apply for the full time board position by filling out an application if he so desires.
6:06 pm
· Discussion: By Dave Wiley – Assessor
Chairman King asks Dave to come forward and discuss the assessment impact if the Village Center and Urban Residential Zoning Districts were realigned and how that will affect those assessments. Dave stated that our Zoning states how the districts are aligned and when they do evaluations neighborhoods are set-up according to what the make-up of the lots are. Dave feels that only 1 property will really change, that being the warehouse along the river on Main Street (Seneca Machine) the homes value will not change. The machine shop should have been assessed as a commercial property. Question was raised pertaining to residential homes that fall within the commercial zone; Dave indicated that as long as those residential uses remain there would be no change in assessment dollars however; if a vacant lot
falls in the commercial zone then it would be assessed as commercial property. Dave gave examples; a base residential ¼-acre assessment at $65,000.00; commercial at $120,000.00; discussion continues on the various sizes of lots and their values; the rezoning would only affect changes if the use changed from residential to commercial.
Paul Parker poses a question - if the commercial operation is on the bottom of the building and there area apartment rentals above how would those be assessed; Dave stated those are price appropriately; Edward Weagle clarified question meaning that if commercial is down and apartments are above the whole building is commercial; Dave stated yes.
Hiram Watson asks Dave; if we realign the Village Center do you see a significant increase in the assessments; Dave stated no. Paul Esswein adds that the Town of Farmington presently has vacant lots in the Village Center.
Various topics / scenarios are discussed with Dave Wiley.
Paul Parker asks Dave; with the changes as proposed, can you or do you have any thoughts on the specifics of those changes; Dave indicated mostly residential areas but probably would not see a big change for awhile down the road.
Chairman King asks the board if they have any more questions for Dave, all members have no further comments / questions; Chairman King thanks Dave for his time.
· Review & Discuss: Letter request from Robert Goodwin for a new hearing regarding the Charles Street / Mt. Vernon Street proposed development By: RSA Development, LLC.
Paul Esswein advises the board Mr. Goodwin informed the Planning Department that they would like to be removed from tonight’s agenda as they have come to an agreement with developer Packy Campbell.
· Review & Discuss: Letter request from Su-Ann Goslin-Stickles asking the Planning Board to reconsider the boards previous condition of approval requiring construction of a cul-de-sac and abandonment of the existing driveway.
Chairman King recuses himself from this portion of the Meeting as he is a direct abutter to the above applicant and turns the chair over to Vice Chairman Don MacVane to conduct the meeting.
Vice Chairman MacVane turns the floor over to Paul Esswein to address the board in this matter; Paul Esswein states that he would like to refresh with the board and bring them up to date on the condition of approval that the Planning Board made; he reads into the record a letter from the applicant requesting reconsideration of their previous condition in regards to the development of the roadway / driveway; Paul Esswein also presents the plan as a refresher to the board to show the hammerhead turnaround and the conditions imposed upon the applicant.
Vice Chairman MacVane wants let the record show that neither of the applicants are here.
Paul Esswein explains to the board members what they can and cannot do; there are questions raised about the 250’ frontage requirement, the paving requirement, which Paul Esswein states that the board could waive.
Vice Chairman MacVane wants the record to show that we have been asked numerous times by the applicant to change their requirements and finishes that we as a board have been more than gracious and accommodating to those requests.
There is discussion regarding the 2nd driveway that still needs to be loamed and seeded.
Hiram Watson interjects that he strongly suggests and recommends that the applicant go back to the ZBA and request a variance; Paul Parker states that he is opposed to that and the road / driveway standards have been changed and feels that we have been helping them out and as Paul Esswein previously stated by not having to pave is a significant savings; Ed Weagle asks if we need to change the plans; Paul Esswein states that is not needed; Jim Horgan adds that he does not like the idea that we made them build a road and that he would support Paul Esswein’s recommendation; Hiram Watson also states that he would support but would still like to see them go before the ZBA; Paul Esswein interjects that there is no need in going to the ZBA; David Kestner, Ed Weagle and Paul Parker all would agree with Paul Esswein’s
recommendation.
Vice Chairman MacVane states that he would like this discussion to be added to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting of 09-05-2006 and asks Paul Esswein to contact the applicant and advise them to attend.
6:42 pm
· Review & Discuss: “Preliminary” Site Plan Review checklist as developed by Paul Esswein.
1st item of discussion: Application Checklist / Preliminary Review
Paul Esswein review with the members of the board the checklist that he has developed for Site Plan Review applicants to adhere to.
Chairman King states that Paul Esswein should add the identifying description of Minor or Major Site Plan Review; David Kestner suggested to add a block for checking off either Minor or Major; Paul Esswein agreed and advised the board members that the checklists that are before them this evening are for discussion purposes and that these checklists were developed to assist the board in defining the application completeness and to have the board add what other criteria they wanted to incorporate on these checklists; Paul Parker asked if Paul Esswein will work with the applicants to assist them in filling out these new checklists.
Various forms of discussion relating to the Waiver Requirement section under the TRC Checklist and the Planning Board Action column.
Don MacVane asks for clarification of UST under 18.B.VIII – Paul Esswein replies that is Underground Storage Tanks
Jim Horgan motions to accept this Application Checklist / Preliminary Review form; 2nd Paul Parker; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
2nd item of discussion: Compliance Review Checklist
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if this checklist is to be used during the deliberation of applications.
There is discussion on the contents and what the responsibilities of the Planning Board are in reviewing this checklist.
Paul Parker has a question regarding Section 30.A and the 8 sub-requirements and if each of those would be handled separately or as a whole; Paul Esswein states that he would recommend handling each of the 8 items separately.
Don MacVane brings to Paul Esswein’s attention that the 1st page has 4 columns and the other sheets only have 3 columns and suggests that the headers on the 1st page continue through the whole document; Paul Esswein aggress with Don MacVane and adds that something did not transfer over when he was creating these in Excel.
Jim Horgan adds his clarification of the use of the checklists. TRC checklist reviews will come in the Planning Board packages and the Compliance Checklist is for each of the Planning Board Members review to check off in preparation for their next Planning Board Meeting.
Jim Horgan motions to accept the Compliance Review Checklist with the recommended changes; 2nd Don MacVane; discussion; Paul Parker suggests to add the Project Name / Applicant to allow for identification purposes on which application / applicant the checklists belong with; Chairman King asks who will fill out these forms “Planning Board Review and Recommendations”; it was stated that the Planning Board Secretary or Chairman will be responsible; Don MacVane suggests a line for the actual name of the application; Chairman King asks wouldn’t it make sense to add to the bottom of the Application Check List; Paul Esswein agrees; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
7:20 pm
David Kestner motions for a 5-minute recess; 2nd Jim Horgan; no further discussion; all those in favor; Don MacVane opposed; motion passes.
7:30 pm
· Review & Discuss: Traffic Impact handout as supplied by Paul Esswein.
Paul Esswein reviews the material that he handed out at the 08-01-2006 Planning Board meeting and comments that this information contains some items for consideration that will trigger this requirement for a traffic study; this will allow for consistency of all application reviews so as not to review haphazardly; Paul Esswein explains that this use was intended to be included in the Site Review and Sub Division Regulations; Hiram Watson asks Paul Esswein where this information came from; Paul Esswein states from a community in NH or PA.
Paul Parker poses a questions regarding #2 of the 4 page hand-out; discussion ensues regarding average daily trips and peak hours of measurement that are used and the minimum threshold criteria.
Chairman King suggests using this as a guideline for recommendations and review for a period of time (nothing defined time wise) and after this “time” to incorporate it into the regulations which would need to go before the Town of Farmington for vote; he adds that the board should have at least one other discussion on this traffic impact handout prior to incorporating it into our regulations.
Chairman King motions to continue this discussion to the next regular Planning Board Workshop Meeting of 09-19-2006; 2nd Don MacVane; discussion; Jim Horgan feels that if a significant application that comes before the board that we need to have something in place; Paul Esswein replies that this is meant to be a tool in assessing what those off site improvements need to be made; continued discussion by board members and Paul Esswein on this handout and the implication that it imposes; discussion on the length of time that the funds are held onto 5-years or 7-years; Jim Horgan states that he supports the motion; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
· Discussion: Regarding Planning Departments review procedures.
Paul Esswein summarizes to the board that this is something to structure our review and reads through the document.
Chairman King states that he has concerns regarding #4 (2); he indicates the importance of making conditions of approval and insuring that all those requirements are addressed and listed in detail.
Chairman King switches subject matter and comment about the Huckins requirements and advises Paul Esswein that the applicant should come back before the board at their next regularly scheduled meeting of 09-05-2006 to address the issues of bonding, cemetery and association documents. Paul Esswein will contact applicant and advise of this requirement.
· Non-public: Session on personnel matters per RSA 91-A:3 II(a).
Chairman King states that this next item was per the Town Administrator, Mr. Weston’s request.
Jim Horgan motions to eliminate this topic from the agenda; 2nd Ed Weagle; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
Don MacVane motions to add discussion to the September 5, 2006 Planning Board Meeting in follow-up from TRC 07-27-2006 regarding the NOD Compliance Hearing by review update by the Town of Farmington Planner in regards to the 61 Charles Street project; 2nd Jim Horgan; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
Chairman King asks if there is any other business to come before the board; nothing heard.
8:15 pm
Jim Horgan motions to adjourn; 2nd Don MacVane; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 09-05-2006
__________________________________________ _________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
