TOWN OF FARMINGTON
PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday – September 16, 2008
356 Main Street - Farmington, NH
Members Present: Chairman Charlie King, David Kestner, Paul Parker, Charlie Doke and Cindy Snowdon
Members Excused: Gerry Gibson
Selectman’s Rep: Paula Proulx
Staff Present: Daniel Merhalski, Director of Planning and Community Development
Public Present: Tom Hillsworth, Amy White and Kevin Mosier
Chairman Charlie King called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm.
Business Before the Board
1. Paul Parker informed the Board that the Strafford Regional Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing in Farmington at the Municipal Offices on September 25th from 7-9pm. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit public comments on draft watershed conservation plans, a draft transportation plan, a draft transportation improvement plan and an air quality conformance plan.
Charlie Doke motioned to recess until 6:30pm, 2nd David Kestner. Motion carried with all in favor.
Public Hearing at 6:36 PM
New Cases:
o Public Hearing for Minor Site Plan Approval (Tax Map R30, Lot 5) – To install twelve (12) panel antennas to be collocated on the existing 560-foot communications tower; Property is located at 623 Ten Rod Road in the (AR) Agricultural Residential Zoning District. – Verizon Wireless
David Kestner recused himself from the application. Mr. Tom Hillsworth, attorney for the applicant, explained the application in that they would like to install 12 panel antennas on the existing communications tower, which will significantly increase the cellular coverage in town. Dan stated that as part of the application, Verizon Wireless had to request numerous waivers, so the Board would need to review them as well.
Paul asked if there are any more immediate proposals for this site from Verizon Wireless and Mr. Hillsworth responded no. Cindy then asked Dan if he had any concerns with the application weight wise and Dan responded no. Mr. Hillsworth explained that they are making some targeted reinforcement additions to the tower as requested by the tower owners. Paul Parker motioned to accept the minor site plan application by Verizon Wireless for Tax Map R30, Lot 5 as complete, 2nd Charlie Doke. Motion carried with all in favor.
Charlie King reviewed the following list of waivers that were requested on the application; 1. a waiver of Sec. 19 of the Site Plan regulations “Traffic Impact Analysis”, 2. a waiver from Sec. 28 – “utilities”, 3. a waiver from Sec. 29 – “landscaping,” 4. a waiver from Section 18 D “Existing Grades and Contours,” 5. a waiver from Sec. 18 F “Size …of Existing Structures,” 6. a waiver from Sec. 18 I “Size..of Existing Public/Private utilities,” 7. a waiver from Sec. 18 A “Proposed Site Conditions – Grades and Contours,” 8. a waiver from Section 18 P “Location, Projection Direction, Decibel Level of Sound Reproduction Devices,” and 9. a waiver from Sec. 18 H “Proposed Site Conditions – Size.. of
Public/Private Utilities. Dan explained that he is comfortable granting these requests because there are no proposed building changes or new construction. Paul Parker motioned to grant the nine (9) waivers requested for the minor site plan application by Verizon Wireless for Tax Map R30, Lot 5, 2nd Charlie Doke. Motion carried with all in favor.
Dan reviewed the draft Notice of Decision with the Board.
Charlie King motioned to approve the minor site plan by Verizon Wireless for Tax Map R30, Lot 5 to install twelve (12) panel antennas to be collocated on the existing 560 foot communications tower, with condition, 2nd Paul Parker. Motion carried with all in favor.
Paul Parker motioned for a five minute recess, 2nd Charlie Doke. Motion carried at 7:22 pm.
Meeting reconvened at 7:30pm.
o Discussion on Route 11 Zoning:
1. The Board reviewed Dan’s proposed changes to the Industrial Business (IB) District Zoning Ordinance Sec. 2.08, which included a minimum lot size change from 4 to 2 acres and a minimum street frontage change from 250 to 150 feet. Paul stated that he did not agree with the 150 foot road frontage minimum and said that it would be more appropriate with a 200 foot minimum. Charlie K. noted that he would be amendable to the 200 foot requirement because it would make the lots more useable, the other members agreed.
Charlie K. questioned if the minimum side and rear setbacks should be 35 feet minimum with a foot added for every additional foot of building height above 35 feet. The Board agreed this was a good idea. Charlie King motioned to approve the draft IB Ordinance Section 2.08 with the two changes as discussed and agreed upon tonight, 2nd Paul Parker. Motion carried with all in favor.
2. The Board reviewed Dan’s proposed changes to the Commercial Business (CB) Zoning District Ordinance Section 2.07. Dan added that he eliminated (C) because businesses do not typically want side and rear parking because it adds to the impervious surfaces and is counter productive. Charlie replied that if you look at the topography of the west side of Rte. 11 this change will assist developers. Paul noted that the front 50 foot setback should not be for parking though. David replied that these lots might not be that big and most of their setback would be being used for vegetation and parking.
Paula suggested increasing the minimum lot size because she feels Rte. 11 would be filled with strip businesses if it were not, especially with no access management plan. Charlie said the Board could require one curb cut with a potential easement to abutters for access management. Dan replied that Paula brought up a good point and he was actually going to start working on a draft access management plan in the next few weeks and it would make sense to increase the minimum lot size. Charlie K. added that these lots would be required to have on-site sewer so they would need to be larger lots anyway. The Board agreed that Dan should bring forward a draft access management plan for November and they could reconsider the numbers for the setbacks if they have to at that time.
Dan suggested removing the “minimum combined side setbacks for primary structure of 50 feet” and increasing the side and rear setbacks. The Board agreed. Charlie K. suggested a 25 foot side and rear minimum with an additional foot added for every foot of building height above 25 feet. Paul suggested changing the setback to 30 feet and the Board agreed. Paul Parker motioned to accept the CB Ordinance Section 2.07 as amended tonight and revisit it in November, 2nd David Kestner. Motion carried with all in favor.
3. The Board reviewed Dan’s proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District Ordinance Section 4.07. Dan explained that this would be for a minimum 5 acre lot with the idea that the former Collins & Aikman site would be the only site identified for this district at this time. Charlie K. asked what the incentives of a PUD are and Dan explained that it gives developers more options to develop a parcel that has otherwise not been developed and allows for Board discretion if the proposed uses are compatible to the Town’s Master Plan or not.
Dan further explained that a parcel would have to be approved at town meeting to be utilized as a PUD and voted on before a developer could utilize this ordinance. Paula stated that she is concerned that this would be a huge burden on the Planning Board to carefully look at these applications as to what is being proposed. Charlie added that the ordinance as written requires a 2/3 approval vote of the Board and questioned why it wouldn’t be a simple majority. Dan explained that the 2/3 is more stringent and because the planning board members are appointed representatives of the town, that the best interests of the town would be considered.
The common land section of the ordinance was then examined and Charlie K. asked what would happen if someone was to buy the 120 acre site and proposed development on only 20 acres. Dan explained that they would either have to put the remaining 100 acres in common land or subdivide the 20 acres out prior to application for a PUD so as to avoid this for the remaining 100 acres.
Cindy asked Dan to get three examples of PUDs and how they benefited the towns they are in. Dan explained that he can get the examples but the benefits would depend on who you asked. He recommended that she may want to contact the Planning professionals in Rochester and the other communities that the draft ordinance was created from to ask them about their specific successes or failures with their PUDs. Cindy said that she would. Charlie asked why the town should use a PUD instead of just changing the Space and Bulk Standards for certain parcels. Dan replied that a PUD allows for multiple structures with multiple uses on one lot.
Paul Parker motioned to continue until 9:30 pm, 2nd David Kestner. Motion carried with all in favor.
David Kestner motioned for a five minute recess, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried at 9:04pm with Paul Parker opposed.
Meeting reconvened at 9:10pm.
David recommended the Board review the ordinance and come back to the next workshop with specific questions and recommendations. Dan said he will check the RSAs to see how exactly a PUD can be established but noted that this draft is the most restrictive in the state and that with a PUD the Board can say no just because the plan is not in the best interest of the town. Charlie K. asked if the Board would have a specific set of criteria to use to approve PUDs and Dan replied they could.
Paula asked why this area can’t be established as a particular zone instead of a PUD so there would be no potential for PUDs throughout the town. Dan replied that a PUD ordinance allows for PUDs in any district as long as it is approved at town meeting but this could be changed to anchor it to a certain area or be just for the IB and CB districts. Dan said that RSA 674:24 allows for PUDs but he is not sure one particular parcel can be identified as a zoned district.
Paula Proulx motioned to continue the Rte. 11 discussion to the October 21, 2008 meeting, 2nd David Kestner. Motion carried with all in favor.
Charlie Doke motioned to continue the meeting until 10 pm, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with Paul Parker and David Kestner opposed.
4. The Board reviewed the Sec. 1.14 definition of “Hazardous Impact.” Charlie K. stated that he believes the 500 vehicle trip threshold is too high and he would like to see it reduced to 250 trips. The Board agreed. Paul added that under #5 it should probably say “excessive noise” instead of just “noise”. Dan recommended adding “vibration” to this as well. Paul Parker motioned to accept the revised drafts of section 1.02 (D) and Section 1.14 definition, 2nd Cindy Snowdon. Motion carried with all in favor.
5. The Board reviewed the proposed draft changes to Section 1.02 (D) (3). Charlie stated that he is concerned there would be no way to deal with excessive hours of operation. Dan explained that this section is only valid for uses approved in the permit, so if a complaint is filed then the permit can be pulled.
The Board then discussed that they were not comfortable with non-conforming uses being grandfathered. Dan reminded the Board that these instances are difficult to correct because it is so difficult to prove in court when they started and that they exist at all. Dan suggested changing the last line to read “All existing non-residential uses as of the date of this ordinance shall not be required to obtain a business permit until a change in use occurs”. The Board agreed this was a good solution. Charlie King motioned to accept the proposed changes to Section 1.02 (D) (3) as amended tonight, 2nd Charlie Doke. Motion carried with all in favor.
David Kestner motioned to adjourn, 2nd Paul Parker. Motion carried with all in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brandy Sanger, Recording Secretary
____________________________________________
Charlie King, Chairman
| 
