PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – OCTOBER 17, 2006
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Hiram Watson, Jim Horgan, David Kestner, Edward Weagle – Alternate
Absent: Don MacVane – with notification
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: No public attendance
Chairman King called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm.
Chairman King acknowledged receipt of a letter addressed to Dennis Roseberry, Town of Farmington CEO; from Christopher Berry of Berry Surveying and Engineering addressing the filling in of the detention pond that is located at 77 Bunker Street (Tax Map U10, Lot #37) that was conditioned upon a Site Review approval with signature of Mylar on 03-04-03. Chairman King referred to Paul Esswein for summary of letter contents; Chairman King indicated that it is his opinion that this is now a compliance issue.
Jim Horgan states that this does not conform to the approved Plan and that this should come back before the Planning Board for review.
Hiram Watson feels that if this is not proposing a problem than it should be okay, but that the applicant should come back before the Planning Board and clarify the reasoning behind the filling in of the detention pond.
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if Berry Surveying did the original, Paul Esswein believes that they did and will verify.
David Kestner asks why did the detention pond get filled in; Paul Esswein states, “we do not know why”. David Kestner further states if the applicant is not building units ever again, that that would be okay, however if the applicants intentions are to build more units than the board will need new plan for review.
Paul Parker agrees with all comments.
Chairman King feels that this is a substantial change to the approved plan and recommends that a drainage plan be reviewed by L. C. Engineering, LLC; Paul Esswein states he feels this is a minimal change for service, but because there’s been a change in the previously approved plan that Craig Lancey would need to come before the Planning Board for Site Review.
Jim Horgan recommends that Craig Lancey and Dennis Roseberry, Town of Farmington CEO be present at the compliance meeting.
Paul Parker thinks that Chairman King has a good idea by having the outside engineer services provide a review, it was suggested that the board could have discussion with Craig Lancey and Dennis Roseberry at their November 7, 2006 Planning Board Meeting.
6:15 p.m.
· Discussion: Re: Potential changes to the Town of Farmington Zoning Ordinance (suggested input from each Planning Board Member).
Chairman King polls each of the Planning Board Members for their input.
Jim Horgan no comment at this time
Hiram Watson would like to see different Zoning on Route 11, there should be some more Commercial versus Industrial; David Kestner interjects that last year a petition was submitted for the Village Center and Urban Residential Zoning Districts to change the density and that maybe we should look at facilitating that request to minimize and allow forward movement in those districts, he agrees with Hiram Watson on the T.O.P.U. (Table of Permitted Uses) in regards to Route 11 and to change the Commercial / Business zone and not the Industrial, also feels that the change in the Commercial / Business zone would add to the bottom line.
Chairman King has 3 points for discussion and consideration; (1) Incentives for the Village Center changes to allow the redevelopment, at this time he does not feel that there is enough time to take on this extension (2) Change in the density in the Urban Residential Zone and subtractions for now (3) Modification of the T.O.P.U. to allow more mixed uses of the Industrial Business / Commercial Zones. Would encourage use of Route 11 – Commercial Center – Office Research Zones with different types of mingling within each of the Zones.
Edward Weagle relinquished his time allotment.
Paul Parker has several comments (1) Costs with discretion on the Village Center incentives and expansion (2) Increase of the Urban Residential density and to make some adjustments per the petitioners request, he uses Garfield Street development as an example (3) Adjustments to the T. O. P. U., not sure many problems, but definitely adjustments should be made (4) Implementation of fencing requirements (5) Elderly / Senior Ordinance.
Chairman King asks Paul Parker for his thoughts and the basis for the need of an Elderly / Senior requirement; Paul Parker replies that 1st we must identify and set-up a basis for such a requirement; he advises that he’s reviewed various other Towns requirements as well as newspapers; he also indicates that it appears other Builders / Developers are having issues with elderly housing; (Paul Parker passes out hand-outs to all board members).
Chairman King have reviewed the wish list of Paul Parker and that we should do something minimal for review as Paul Esswein has resigned as Town of Farmington Planner effective November 3, 2006.
Jim Horgan agrees that all issues need to be dealt with but 1st the Master Plan must be completed, he adds that he feels this is too complicated to rush and get through in time for the March Town Meeting; suggests the establishment of a committee to work on all of the items on the Boards wish list in preparation for the Town Meeting in 2008.
Hiram Watson feels that the Urban Residential density is the easiest and most important to address “time permitting”.
David Kestner agrees with Hiram Watson as far as the simplicity of both items appear easy, fencing could be a big issue, he would be interested in looking at Paul Parkers elderly housing plan.
Hiram Watson asks Paul Parker where he got the elderly information from; Paul Parker stated that he picked up the information a few years ago when the sub-committee ZAMPS was formed.
Chairman King polls the board members to see if the want to go through each of the sections of the T.O.P.U. or continue it to the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting; Edward Weagle indicates that we should undertake the T.O.P.U.; Paul Parker agrees with the T.O.P.U. as well as consideration of the Urban Residential Zoning District; we could do a quick fix on the Urban Residential Zoning District but there are other areas to review; Paul Parker offers compliments to Paul Esswein’s’ view of the Village Center rezoning and that there is plenty of time allowed to work on this as well.
Chairman King states that he does not agree with the forward movement in the Village Center at this time.
Paul Parker agrees with the thoughts of Jim Horgan to re-establish a committee to review and recommend the reinstitution of ZAMPS to look at the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman King asks the members of the board if they have any further thoughts going forward;
Chairman King calls for a roll call vote to move forward in discussion of the T.O.P.U. (Table Of Permitted Uses) 5 votes for – Chairman King, Paul Parker, David Kestner, Hiram Watson, Edward Weagle, 1 vote opposed – Jim Horgan
Chairman King calls for a roll call vote to move forward in discussion of the Urban Residential Zoning District density issues; 4 votes for – Chairman King, Paul Parker, David Kestner, Hiram Watson, 2 votes opposed – Jim Horgan, Edward Weagle
Chairman King indicates that we have 2 tasks; Modification of the T. O. P. U. and consideration of proposed change in the Urban Residential Zoning District.
· Discussion; Re: Chapter VI of the Town of Farmington Master Plan
Paul Esswein advises that ZAMPS has reviewed Chapter 6 of the Master Plan and feels that the Planning Board should take the ZAMPS Committee changes / comments and take his (Paul Esswein) changes / comments place them side by side along with the minutes of the last 2 ZAMPS Meetings and compare and develop comments. None of the board members had the Chapter VI changes / comments as compiled by ZAMPS;
6: 40 p.m.
Chairman King called for a 10-minute recess; 2nd Jim Horgan; no further discussion; all those in favor; Edward Weagle against 10-minute recess; motion passes.
During this recess; Doreen T. Hayden; made copies of Chapter VI of the Master Plan and the last 2 meeting minutes of ZAMPS for each of the Planning Board Members.
6:51 p.m.
Chairman King reconvenes the meeting and states this was a brief recess to allow for copies to be made and handed out in preparation for the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting 11-21-2006.
Chairman King asks for input and discussion on the T. O. P. U.
Hiram Watson indicates to begin on page 22, I Agricultural; Chairman King states the bottom few “dog kennels” reference “SE”; could we redefine to stipulate the number of dogs; Paul Parker believes that 5 adult dogs is adequate; Jim Horgan makes reference to the “noise” level of 5 dogs; Paul Parker suggests we could make it “PR”; David Kestner stated that if we make it “PR” we would then be able to notice all abutters; Jim Horgan adds that he has a problem putting a number on it; Paul Esswein suggest using some type of threshold that is reasonable, otherwise you will have problems; Edward Weagle asks how it would be enforced; Paul Esswein discusses the legality of enforcement of “PR” without a number association; Jim Horgan adds to leave the
definition alone and make it a permitted use; Paul Esswein would recommend that the zoning areas of SR, UR and VC be eliminated and that the zoning areas of RR and AR are allowed with review.
II Residential A; Chairman King questions “Residential Care” as to why this is not allowed in the Village Center; Hiram Watson offers why not in the IB / ORB Zoning District; Chairman King replies that the IB Zone does not encourage any residential living; Paul Parker states that the IB is boney and rocky and that the soils are not good and that is why the North side is for Commercial use; Chairman King feels that the “Convalescent” should be considered under commercial as residential is more like in home care; Paul Esswein reads definitions, agrees with Chairman King to expand Commercial use and that Nursing and Residential Care should be considered for the Village Center; Jim Horgan offers that if he was a frail old man that I might like the idea of living in close proximity to a downtown area;
Various levels of discussion continue on the Convalescent / Residential Care facility expansion into other zones; Chairman King indicates that he is okay with the Village Center and Commercial Center, however a little on the fence with regard to the ORB / IB zones; David Kestner interjects why wouldn’t we just use a dash for the AR Zone; and further suggests the AR have a dash and the CC have a PR; Jim Horgan adds that he thinks they could go anywhere as PR; Edward Weagle agrees with Jim Horgan; Paul Parker does not agree in the IB or CC and states to leave it alone.
II Residential B; - No discussion
II Residential C; - Paul Esswein suggests that under the Child Care Family Group that the board might want to consider a PR (uses Farmington Day Care as an example).
III Institutional A; Discussion on the Club & Lodges and Hospitals as not allowed in the CC, IB and ORB zones; Chairman King is okay with the CC and ORB, but a little on the fence regarding the IB; Paul Esswein and Chairman King entertain discussion on why you wouldn’t allow that type of development as PR; Paul Esswein really does not see why the board wouldn’t allow expansion and that it really should be PR; Chairman King states maybe should be stricter in the AR, SR, and RR zones as not allowed and leave the rest as PR;
Chairman King moves to the Museums and comments there are none in the AR Zone but permitted with review in the VC and CC when it should be PR straight across the board; Paul Parker reflects that putting a museum in the Residential district could increase traffic; Chairman King uses examples of Farm Museums in the AR Zone and wants PR straight across the board and continue with further discussion at the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting of 11-21-2006. Chairman King asks Paul Esswein if we have a definition on Clubs and Lodges; Paul Esswein reviews definition – none are listed; Chairman King states that we need to develop language / definition of what a club or lodge is. Chairman King moves next to the Schools / Colleges and questions what about the CC & IB Zoning Districts and why would we consider ORB
as SE; Paul Esswein feels that the CC & ORB should be PR as it fits within the general definition of ORB a type of business that needs to be located on a Main Street; Paul Esswein further suggests all should be PR in the CC, ORB, and IB; Jim Horgan no comment, Hiram Watson agrees with all comments; Edward Weagle also agrees with all comments; Paul Parker feels no in the IB and okay with the CC and ORB Zones.
Chairman King moves to Libraries – Asks why we wouldn’t allow them in the CC – asks Paul Esswein for definition; no definition available in the ZO; Paul Esswein offers – typically libraries are non-profit agencies within municipalities; Paul Parker states to leave it alone;
Chairman King moves to Churches – Paul Esswein advises that legally you cannot restrict.
Definition of Adult Day Care offered – Come and go the same day.
Chairman King moves to Day Care Center with 12 or more; asks what is the difference between Child Day Care, Family Group; various levels of discussion ensue.
David Kestner makes reference to RSA 170-E:2 and suggests that the members of the board review this and then come up with definitions for the 5 items under III Institutional.
IV Recreational; Golf Courses – Paul Parker does not see any reason to change; Parks & Outdoor Rec.-Paul Esswein offers his comments of wouldn’t it make sense to allow in the CC, ORB and IB; Paul Parker disagrees, Chairman King asks him which one, Paul Parker states IB and further elaborates that if you want expansion of the ORB then the definition of ORD should be restated; Edward Weagle feels that your limiting to the ORB requirement and that you put that in for a reason, why would you want to develop a mini-golf range, batting cages, etc. Chairman King reflects that Parks & Recreation is not allowed in the CC, ORB and IB Zoning Districts and why wouldn’t we consider change to PR in the CC; wouldn’t we also want to consider fully enclosed places; Paul Parker asks should be change to PR;
Chairman King indicates that would be my take; also feels that the residential zones should be left as SE and others should be PR;
8:20 p.m.
Chairman King notes for the record that Edward Weagle is leaving.
Campgrounds are up next and Paul Esswein recommends to remove as SE and leave as not allowed.
V. Utility Uses – Chairman King asks for a definition of Wind Generators – discussion regarding the need for definition; and possibly the permitted use in a couple of areas; table discussion for a later date; Utilities – discussion ensues on areas of allowable use; David Kestner makes reference to some different utility line that are in existence and that are coming down;
Chairman King moves to VI Commercial & Industrial; asks if the board would like to adjourn and pick up this discussion at the next regularly scheduled Planning Board Workshop; Paul Parker states that this is a large section and does not want to go past 9:00 p.m.; Chairman King offers that this section requires a lot of work and the uses need to be addressed; suggests the board tackle this at the November 21, 2006 Workshop and further implies that this section requires various levels of definitions which will require much discussion; asks Paul Esswein to research definitions.
8: 40 p.m.
David Kestner motions to adjourn; 2nd Paul Parker; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
APPROVED AS AMENDED 11-07-2006
Amend page 1 of 6; 10th typed line change the word could to come;
Amend page 3 of 6; 5th typed line add the letter b before the lonely letter e to make the word be;
_______________________________________ ___________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
