TOWN OF FARMINGTON
PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday – January 5, 2010
356 Main Street - Farmington, NH
Members Present: Chairman Paul Parker, David Kestner, Charlie Doke, Glen Demers, Tim Moody, Tracy Major, Cindy Snowdon and Jim Horgan
Town Staff Present:Kathy Menici, Director of Planning and Community Development
Selectman’s Rep: Charlie King
Public Present: Randy Orvis, Tom Huckins, Victor Lapierre and Kerri Lapierre
Chairman Paul Parker called the meeting to order at 6:01pm and welcomed new Planner, Kathy Menici.
BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD:
- Kathy read the letter that the Board asked Mike Garrepy to draft at the last meeting to Energy Resources Group, LLC. The Board was in agreement this letter was good and should be sent out.
- Kathy informed the Board that they might want to consider changing their notification policy to certified mail instead of certified mail with return receipt. She explained that with the requested receipt many people will not or cannot go to the post office to get this mail and therefore never get the notification. Also, the Board should not hold a public hearing without receiving all the receipts back since they were requested. She further explained that RSA 676:1a requires hearing notification by certified mail and is not specific to require the receipt and the cost difference is $3 with the receipt.
The Board discussed they did not see any reason to not change to just certified mail and that it might help more people to receive their notifications. The Board will discuss this change at the next workshop meeting because the fee schedule will need to be modified as well.
At 6:19pm, Charlie King motioned to recess until 6:30pm, 2nd Glen Demers. Motion carried.
At 6:29pm the Board reconvened.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:30PM
- Proposed Amendments to Sections 5.01 & 5.02 Home Business and Home Occupation
Paul asked Kathy for her opinion on Section 5.01 and Kathy replied that she thinks both sections are great because they support community growth but with clear boundaries and standards. Charlie K. asked if she felt they were overly restrictive or lenient and Kathy replied she felt there was a good balance.
Paul opened the Public Hearing.
Randy Orvis stated he feels the proposed changes are overly restrictive. He feels that limiting a home business to one additional employee is not realistic as well as the number of trips being limited to 3 customers per day. Mr. Orvis added that he also does not believe a person should have to go to the Planning Board to determine if a list is unobtrusive as stated in #8. Charlie K. responded that someone needs to determine if an unlisted use is unobtrusive and this addition expands the permitted uses. Mr. Orvis disagreed noting he feels it is more restrictive. Kathy suggested changing the language to say the “following uses are examples” and then rely on the standards plus the traffic impact is what usually causes abutters to react to something new.
Kerri Lapierre stated he is concerned with the requirement that there are only 18 additional trips per week aloud because it is not reasonable to have only 3 customers per day. Charlie K. asked what he felt would be more reasonable.
Tom Huckins stated he had several concerns. First, that only one person living in the home can be employed in the business. Second, #5 because businesses grow and need room to do so and lastly #6 because the number of trips is to low.
Paul commented that the Board is trying to find a balance as to what is in the best interest of the community and the resident. Tracy added that the Board needs to ensure that traffic does not impact neighbors and safety. Charlie agreed that 18 trips are probably too restrictive and maybe it could be amended to meet that goal that traffic safety is not impacted.
Randy asked what would happen for a current Home Business/Occupation that wanted to expand. Paul replied that they would be grandfathered but expansions would come before the Planning Board. The Board then discussed that this is a gray area. Victor Lapierre stated these sections are restrictive and it is small business that keeps us going. Dave commented that a lot of the concerns brought up tonight are in the current ordinance that will stay in effect without the proposed changes.
Jim asked what is in effect that dictates a resident must follow the ordinance. Charlie K. replied that it is a Town ordinance and responsible citizens know and follow their Town rules and regulations. Kathy noted that an ordinance also allows the Code Enforcement Officer to approve a business and disclaim some abutter complaints. It can protect the right of abutters as well as, the right for a home occupation to exist.
Kathy suggested changing the wording of #6 to being traffic oriented instead of limiting the number of trips which is the Board’s goal. Cindy Snowdon motioned to change the wording of Section 5.01 A.6 to read “Traffic generated by the occupation will not negatively impact the neighborhood.”, 2nd Dave Kestner. Discussion followed in which Charlie K. suggested having the traffic not be in excess of what normal traffic for the area is but the amendment was not accepted. Motion carried with Paul Parker abstaining.
Charlie King motioned to remove Section 5.01A.3, 2nd Tracy Major. Discussion followed Kathy agreed this would be good because it would be an enforcement issue and offered the recommendation to change #4 to read “It shall be secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises and will not alter the general character…”Charlie K. amended his motion to add section #4 should be changed to read “it shall be secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises and will not alter the general character of the neighborhood, Tracy Major accepted the amendment. Motion carried with all in favor.
In regards to Section 5.01A.8 Charlie stated he feels it should be consistent with zoning and determined by the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) and not the Planning Board. Paul suggested a committee but the Board agreed the CEO would be a more viable solution. Dave Kestner motioned to amend Section 5.01A.8 to have the Code Enforcement Officer and not the Planning Board made the decision as to the use being permitted, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with all in favor.
At 8:13pm, Dave Kestner motioned for a short recess, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with all in favor.
In regards to Section 5.01A.5 Mr. Orvis stated he didn’t agree with no outdoor storage of materials or equipment because for example a carpenter would not be able to have ladders outside. Jim suggested changing the wording to read outside storage is limited and screened to the extent practical. Tracy pointed out there is a similar issue in #7 because it says their should be no change in appearance but Charlie K. stated that #7 intent is for the aesthetics of the home. Cindy suggested reversing the placement of #6 and #7 so the document flows better. Cindy Snowdon motioned to amend Section 5.01A.5 to read “It shall result in no external evidence of the enterprise and outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall be limited and reasonably screened from view. There is no
change in the outside appearance of the building or premises, or any visible evidence of the conduct of such Home Occupation other than one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet in area, non-illuminated and mounted flat against the wall of the residence.”, 2nd Charlie King. Discussion followed in which Tracy thought the word “premises” should be removed because the appearance will change with screening but Cindy did not accept the friendly amendment. Then Dave suggested removing the item where the sign must be installed “flat against the wall” so one could put the sign on a post but Cindy did not accept that friendly amendment either. Motion carried with Tracy Major and Dave Kestner opposed.
Cindy Snowdon motioned to amend Section 5.01A.7 to read “It shall not have an adverse effect on the environment or the surrounding properties as a result of noise, odors, smoke, dust, lights, soil, water or air pollution or as a result of other nuisances.”, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with all in favor.
Tracy stated she is concerned that the Section does not address parking. Charlie K. replied that if they do not have reasonable parking it will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood so it would be covered. Dave commented that parking was included in the original regulation. Dave Kestner motioned to add as 5.01A.7 “Any need for parking generated by the conduct of the occupation is met off the street, 2nd Cindy Snowdon. Motion carried with all in favor.
At 9:08pm, Charlie Doke motioned to continue the meeting to 9:30pm, 2nd Tracy Major. Motion carried with all in favor.
At 9:12pm, Tracy Major motioned for a recess, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with all in favor.
At 9:20pm the Board reconvened.
Charlie King motioned to accept all the proposed changed to Section 5.01 and continue the public hearing to January 12, 2010. He then withdrew his motion.
Jim stated that he is concerned this is being rushed through to make Town Meeting and suggested putting a hold on the Section so the Board can review more thoroughly to consider zoning and such. Cindy replied that she is concerned that there are a lot of conflicts currently and immediate changes are needed to fix those conflicts and then the Board can revisit it over the year. Charlie K. agreed with Cindy and noted that the Board is in consensus on the document reads now and has put a lot of work into it over the past several months so it should move forward. Charlie King motioned to continue this Section to the public hearing and then withdrew his motion.
At 9:30pm, Charlie King motioned to continue the meeting to 10pm, 2nd Tracy Major. Motion carried with all in favor.
The Board began the review of Section 5.02 for Home Business. Kathy suggested that 5.02A.5 should probably be amended. Cindy Snowdon motioned to amend Section 5.02A.5 to read “It shall be secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises and will not alter the general character of the neighborhood or reduce the values of any surrounding property, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with all in favor.
Mr. Huckins commented that this is also limiting by only allowing one additional employee. Charlie pointed out that it would be difficult to enforce also and pointed out that the intent was not to limit off-premises employees. Charlie King motioned to change #2 to read “not more than three (3) on premises employees” instead of one, 2nd Tracy Major. Motion carried with all in favor.
Charlie King motioned to change Section 5.02.A.3 to add “as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer” to the last sentence, 2nd Tracy Major. Motion carried with all in favor.
It was discussed that Section 5.02A.10 should limit the number of shipments and deliveries because they would have site review. Mr. Orvis pointed out that UPS comes earlier and later than the hours cited as well and a business owner would have no control over these deliveries. Charlie King motioned to amend Section 5.02A.10 to read “Traffic generated by the occupation will not negatively impact the neighborhood, 2nd Cindy Snowdon. Motion carried with all in favor.
At 10:04pm, Charlie King motioned to continue the meeting until 10:30pm, 2nd Paul Parker. Motion carried with all in favor.
In regards to Section 5.02A.14 Mr. Orvis stated that re-permitting seems futile. Charlie K. replied that the intent was to make sure the business was in compliance on an annual basis and commented that on rethinking it this might be difficult to enforce. Plus this is more restrictive that the regulations for commercial businesses. Kathy noted that because it is under Home Business there would be a Notice of Decision and the Code Enforcement Officer would have to verify compliance. Cindy Snowdon motioned to remove Section 5.02A. (14), (15) and (16), 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with all in favor.
Charlie King motioned to continue this public hearing on proposed zoning amendment changes to January 13, 2010 at 6pm, 2nd Cindy Snowdon. Motion carried with all in favor.
Paul noted that the residents present tonight have comments on the Aquifer Protection Overlay District proposed changes and would like to give them a chance to comment. Mr. Huckins noted that the Town is currently violating this ordinance because it dumps treated snow at the Sarah Greenfield Business Park which is within the Aquifer Protection area. Charlie K. noted he is not in favor of the Town not following its own rules and will follow up with this. Mr. Orvis noted that he believes the changes are positive improvements and his only concern is that the Conservation Commission was never asked to review it and it is environmentally based. Charlie K. suggested forwarding to the Conservation Commission now for comment noting it was a pure oversight. The Board agreed to forward to the
Commission.
Cindy Snowdon motioned to post the second public hearing for the proposed zoning amendments for January 19, 2010, 2nd Charlie King. Motion carried with all in favor.
At 10:31pm, Charlie Doke motioned to adjourn, 2nd Dave Kestner. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brandy Sanger
Recording Secretary
___________________________ _________________
Paul Parker, Chairman Date
| 
