TOWN OF FARMINGTON
PLANNING BOARD
WORKSHOP
MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – June 17, 2008
356 Main Street, Farmington, NH
Members Present: Chairman Charlie King, David Kestner, Paul Parker, Gerry Gibson
Charlie Doke
Members Absent w/Notice: Cindy Snowdon
Selectman’s Rep: Paula Proulx
Staff Present: Daniel Merhalski, Director of Planning and Community Development
Public Present: None
Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 6:11 pm.
Business Before The Board
Charlie Doke (Alternate) was seated for Hiram Watson.
Hiram Watson has given his resignation, due to other commitments. Dan Merhalski did speak to Hiram, to see if he might reconsider. Hiram may reconsider in the future, but not at this time. Charlie King stated that there are now 3 positions open on the board. One (1) full-time seat, and Two (2) seats for alternates.
1. Discussion of Sidewalk Amendments to the Subdivision and Site Plan
Regulations:
Charlie King listed the changes:
1. Agricultural Residential District – In Residential developments with new interior road(s) and seven (7) or more dwelling units, sidewalks shall be required to meet the standards of the Rural Residential district below. Any requests for waivers for these standards may be considered by the board on case-by-case bases.
Charlie King asked for discussion, “Is this how the board intended this to be read?”
It was agreed by all, that this was acceptable.
1
2. Suburban Residential – The changes were to go back to the previous 5’ width, it was recommended to go back to 6’, but we went back to original 5’. Also there was a change that we left in compacted gravel and to put in parentheses that it is not encouraged. Also the thickness of it based on the recommendation from Joel Moulton from 4” to 6”.
Charlie asked for discussion on this. Paul Parker stated that he still had some concerns on #7. Responsibilities of the maintence. He would like to wait until a public hearing to further discuss this. Charlie asked Dan Merhalski if there had been legal review on this. Dan could not remember, his notes do not reflect that there has been. He will check and they could discuss this at the 7/15/08 meeting. Paul would like to plan a public hearing.
Motion – Paul Parker motioned to accept the draft site plan subdivision regulation amendments for sidewalks as written and to schedule for public hearing on 7/15/08, 2nd Gerry Gibson. Motion carried with all in favor.
Charlie asked to move up the next discussion from #3 to #2.
2. Discussion of Site Plan Regulations and Zoning Ordinance provisions for Village
Center (VC)
Charlie King stated that, the Board had discussed about 2 years ago to consider a threshold that would not require Site Plan Review before the Planning Board for changes of permitted uses under a certain square footage. Roughly it was talked about being 1,500 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. threshold.
Charlie King stated that is was commented on by Randy Orvis, who was in the public hearing portion, that there may need to be changes to the Zoning Ordinance to authorize the Planning Board to make site review regulation changes. After legal review it was noted that the Zoning Ordinance would need to be changed.
The Board then reviewed The Table of Permitted Uses. Charlie also stated that the Table of Permitted Uses was revised just last year to become less restricted and more consistent across the board.
It was discussed if the Planning Board would like to suggest a staff or technical review.
It was also stated that this might need to be something that the applicant would have to agree with. Dan Merhalski will check with legal council regarding Zoning Ordinance amendment and changing the statute. This may all be based on the RSA’s and how it is stated and what it allows.
Dan said that if a public hearing is required then it has to come before the Planning Board. If it just says that a site review is required and it doesn’t give criteria for a specific public hearing, it may be able to be delegated to staff responsibility.
2
Gerry Gibson asked, “Who would be the designated staff member?”
Charlie King states that it would be the Planning Department.
Dan Merhalski said that in his experience and in other places that he has worked, Site Plan Review is not triggered at all unless there is 1,500 sq.ft. or more of new construction purposed. Right now our ordinance states that unless development is single family dwellings, any new development, it could be a 1 sq. ft. addition, would be required to come before Planning Board. There is a difference between major and minor review, but this is just to address if there is new construction purposed, or if there is a construction threshold purposed of 500, 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 sq.ft.; this would probably help any businesses that would want to open or expand in the down town area without proposing substantial new construction, or simply moving into an existing building when the use requires review by the Board. It is
not meant to be burdensome to the residents.
Dave Kestner states that there may be times when the Board does want to have a Site Plan Review and a public hearing. Dave noted the Game Spot; going from a barbershop to a video shop. Not a like to like. Had this not come for site review, then there would not have been opportunities for questions. At least with requiring the P/R (Permitted by Review), we were given the opportunity to notify abutters. Are these the types of establishment we want to have in our downtown?
Paul Parker asked, how do we determine where the threshold should come in?
Paula Proulx stated that the Planning Board just has to be willing to permit waivers for some fees. That in itself would grant review from the Board and grant the business owner some expense savings.
Gerry Gibson wanted it on the record that he never minds sitting through any requests.
Charlie King questioned; do we want to meet with everyone who opens a like business.
Example being, law office to insurance office, pizza shop to sub shop.
Dan Merhalski stated that there are two aspects being discussed tonight: the uses permitted, and then the thresholds for Planning Board review of construction. The Zoning Board of Adjustment should be able to determine usage. Zoning could be the one to decide whether usage will change. Then a project proposing new construction over the required thresholds will need to come before the Planning Board. Dan will check with legal regarding wording or notification to any abutters. Dan mentioned that maybe the Board really needed to review the Table of Permitted Uses for a possible change of Permitted by Review to a straight Permitted or Permitted with Special Exception.
Motion – at 7:55pm, Dave Kestner motioned to recess until 8:00pm, 2nd Gerry Gibson. Motion carried with all in favor.
3
The Board reconvened the meeting at 8:10pm
Dan Merhalski was asked to work on some verbiage for the thresholds for the entire town and draft a different review policy and recommendations regarding the Table of Permitted Uses.
It was discussed to let Dan see what he can come up with and continue this topic
at a future meeting.
Motion – Charlie King motioned to continue the discussion of Site Plan Regulations and Zoning Ordinance provisions for Village Center (VC) District to the next workshop meeting of 7/15/08, 2nd Paul Parker. Motion carried with all in favor.
3. Discussion on Route 11 Re-Zoning
Dan Merhalski reviewed and commented on the request of the Economic Development Committee to make the Rt.11 corridor more business friendly. Does the Planning Board want to restructure the zones or amend the zones?
Paul Parker explained why the ORB was set up the way it is. It was based on the proximity to the river and the traffic. The IB & CC districts were based on the knowledge of the land quality.
Charlie King stated that the Board might need to review the space and bulk standards.
Examples being industrial business districts. Charlie also noted that the lot size is not typical in area towns. Maybe the requirements could be changed form 4 acres to 1-acre lots.
Paula Proulx stated that the Master Plan already states that we would like to attract more small or medium size business, that will sustain themselves. If this is what we want to do then we also need to address the access points from Rt. 11. Paula also said that maybe a node should be considered, a cluster development. This would help with the access point issues and still keep it aesthetically pleasing, maintaining it as a corridor and
still getting the use of the land.
Dave Kestner agreed that we do need to change the acre requirements and be open to the idea of expanding Rt. 11 to small strip malls and/or small business districts. Maybe we need to overlay some CC in the IB area to promote growth along the Rt. 11 area.
Charlie King notes that the real issue is the access points, and a parallel road may be the answer that is needed to keep traffic flow moving along smoothly. Charlie also asked Dan and Paula for the Economic Development Committee’s point of view.
4
Paula Proulx commented that we need to decide how we want this to be developed, because development is coming our way. We are next on the list and if we are not ready it may not be in the best interest of the town.
Dave Kestner thinks that we need to allow smaller lots and allow the small strip malls and business districts. Dave is concerned that the businesses will come and pass the Farmington area by and go right to the next town.
Paul Parker and Paula Proulx agreed but feel we need to take it slow and be careful with our requirement changes.
Dan Merhalski would like to come back to the Board with a few things:
• 90% of the usage in these three districts is exactly the same. Why are we breaking them up, instead of specializing on what areas you want to have as just industrial or just office-research and why.
• Nodal development requirements are very good, and we can do district requirements for it, or an overlay district for access management for specific areas. Also buffering and landscaping are certainly important when you are looking at new development coming up, because there is a lot of pressure that will be coming down the pipeline. What uses and where do you want heavy industrial uses? Do you want to break those up into separate uses? Keep in mind the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. Do we really want heavy industrial uses available there, and if so, we need to make sure there are standards to protect the aquifer.
• Changing of the density with the acre sizes only applies to the newly created parcels. The existing lots of record do not matter what size they are and will still be grand-fathered; so the size is not going to be a prohibition, only if you want to subdivide in the future. Reducing the lot size is not going to impact it unless an owner wants to subdivide.
Motion – at 9:15 pm, Paul Parker motioned to extend the meeting to 9:30pm, 2nd Charlie Doke. Motion carried with all in favor.
Motion – Charlie King motioned to continue the discussion of Route 11 Re-Zoning to the next workshop meeting of 7/15/08, 2nd Gerry Gibson.
Motion carried with all in favor.
Motion – Paula Proulx motioned to adjourn the meeting, 2nd Paul Parker.
Motion carried with all in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
5 6
Respectfully Submitted,
Elaine Labrie
Planning Dept. Secretary
____________________________________________
Charlie King, Chairman
| 
