Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 10/05/2010
TOWN OF FARMINGTON
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
356 Main Street, Farmington, NH

Board Members Present:  Paul Parker, Dave Kestner, Charlie Doke and Jim Horgan

Board Members Absent:           Cindy Snowdon (excused) and Glen Demers (excused)
Selectmen’s Representative:     Charlie King
Town Staff Present:             Director of Planning and Community Development Kathy Menici and Code Enforcement Officer Dennis Roseberry
Public Present:                 Neil Johnson
At 6:05pm, Chairman Paul Parker opened the meeting and seated Jim Horgan for Glen Demers.

BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD:
  • Continued Discussion – Petition Regarding 300 Main Street:
Dennis reported that he spoke with Mr. Duchano this morning and there have been some improvements to the outside of the house over the past few weeks.  Mr. Duchano said that he would fax over the engineer’s structure report.  He is also trying to evict his tenants and currently they have until Friday to vacate the premises.  Jim Horgan motioned to continue the discussion on the petition regarding 300 Main Street to October 19, 2010, 2nd Dave Kestner.  Motion carried with all in favor.

  • Continued Discussion – Subdivision Plan Lot Regulation:
Paul reminded the Board that the outstanding issue with this regulation is the 40,000 sq. ft. of  be in favor of lowering the requirement to 30,000 sq. ft. in the 1 acre zone areas but not in the others and he also would not be in favor of removing the requirement from the Zoning Ordinance because then applicants would want to barter the requirement.  Charlie, Paul and Jim all stated they could agree to this change as long as it does not put  a stricter requirement.  Dave stated he would like to look at recent subdivisions to see if these proposed changes would have made a difference and would have had the impact the Board is looking for.  The Board agreed this would be helpful.  Jim Horgan motioned to continue the discussion on the Subdivision Plan Lot Regulation to November 3, 2010, 2nd Dave Kestner.  Motion carried with all in favor.




  • Continued Discussion of Preliminary Review of Proposals from Potential Peer Engineering Review Consultants:
Dave noted that he was unable to change files with Charlie K. so therefore they were unable to complete their review of the proposals.  Kathy stated that the entire Board should review all the proposals and have a discussion on which companies they would like to invite in for an interview.  Dave agreed noting that Glen is not present tonight and he feels his expertise would be necessary in this process.  Jim Horgan motioned to continue the discussion to November 3 and have Kathy send a letter to the consultants who submitted proposals explaining that the Board’s decision has been delayed a few weeks, 2nd Dave Kestner.  Motion carried with all in favor.

At 7:01pm, Dave Kestner motioned for a short recess, 2nd Jim Horgan.  Motion carried with all in favor.

The Board reconvened at 7:17pm.

  • Discussion – Review of Zoning Ordinance:
Kathy forwarded a list of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for 2011.
  • Introduction – Paragraph (A) – the first sentence is incomplete.  Kathy stated she would like it to read “…it is important to read the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with the Site Plan Regulations and/or Subdivision Regulations.”  Charlie stated that the original sentence probably pointed to the Table of Permitted Uses.  The Board will look into what the older Ordinance said and continue this discussion.
  • Paul pointed out that on Page 5, 1.10 (B) may need to be revised.  Kathy stated that this section is correct because the Selectman have the authority to establish these fees.
  • Page 7 – section 1.12 (A)(3) and (3)b – Refers to Business/Civic Uses.  There is no such category identified in the Table of Permitted Uses.  Kathy stated she thinks it should read “Certain districts prohibit non-residential uses.”  The Board was in agreement this was an appropriate change.
  • Page 29 – Section 2.02(D) – square footage of contiguous uplands may need to be revised.  This discussion was tabled.
  • Page 30 – section 2.03 (D) – same as above.  This discussion was tabled.
  • Page 34 – Section 2.08 (C) – Move to Site Plan Review Regs?  Charlie K. commented that he though all the parking requirements were moved to the Site Plan Review Regulations.  The Board was in agreement to move this requirement to the Site Plan Review Regulations.
  • Page 37 – Section 3.03 and 3.03(A)  - Correct reference to Supervisor of Vehicle Maintenance and Highways.  Should be Public Works Director.  The Board was in agreement the reference should be to the Public Works Director.
  • Page 39 – Section 3.08 – Change off street parking space dimensions to 9” x 20” to be consistent with Federal Highway Administration MUTCD standards.  Move to Site Plan Review Regulations.  The Board was in agreement to move the section to the Site Plan Review Regs.
  • Page 41 – Section 3.09 (C) – Change references to CC and ORBC to correct zoning district.  The Board was in agreement the CC should be changed to CB and the ORBC should be changed to CIBO.\
  • Page 44 – Definition of Fall Zone (telecommunications ordinance) – Allows a fall zone equal to 100% of the tower height.  Typically the fall zone is 150% of tower height or greater as a collapsing tower will scatter debris out and away from the tower.  The Board was in agreement to make the change to 150% as this is a typical standard.
  • Page 47 – Paragraph (F) (2) – 200 feet in height seems excessive.  It was noted how this would be applied to the current towers in town right now that are in excess of 500 feet.  There was a lengthy discussion on this section and Kathy will work on the wording for this section and also contact a few companies to see what “normal” tower heights are right now.
  • Page 59 – Delete underline for prima facie
  • Page 67 – Correct formatting; add “Continued on Next Page;” delete underline in paragraph (E).
  • Page 80 – Section 3.18 (A) – Reference to Section 1.09 should be Section 1.10?  The Board agreed this change in reference is correct.
  • Page 80 – Section 3.18 (B) (3) – Where is building permit allocation plan?  Should be identified in ordinance and if there is not a plan then the Board may want to consider a different language.  The Board was in agreement that there is not an allocation plan and Kathy stated that State Ordinance requires an allocation plan if the permits are allocated.  The Board was in agreement to change “allocation” to “issuance.”
  • Page 94 – Section 4.02 Watershed Protection Overlay District – Incorporate these requirements into general requirements as the requirements pertain to the Town in its entirety.  (Also recommended by Town Counsel.)    Kathy stated that this section should be moved to the front of the Ordinance and put in a general requirement section because the whole town is in the watershed protection district.  Dave stated that this section is supposed to point to the watershed protection overlay district around the Cocheco River Watershed.  Kathy stated that paragraph A conflicts with the rest of the section.  The Board decided they wanted to wait on making this decision, review some maps, and make a decision thereafter.
  • Town Counsel suggested For Special Exception criteria in all districts, add the following; “In addition to the criteria specified in Section 2.00(E), the following criteria must be satisfied.”  The Board was in agreement to make this change.
  • Town Counsel suggested deleting Section 1.08 on page 5 as there is no statutory authority to require zoning permits.  The Board was in agreement to delete this section.
  • Town Counsel suggested adding “if required” to Section 1.11(D)(2)(b)(ii).  The Board was in agreement this was a good idea.
  • Town Counsel suggested changing “members” to “residents” on page 13 under Home Business and Home Occupation.  The Board was in agreement to make this change.
  • Town Counsel suggested adding a definition for “multi-family” on page 14.  Kathy will come up with a proposed definition for the Board to review.
  • Town Counsel suggested on Page 18 – use one or the other, not both “Sign, Off-Site and Sign, Off-Site Commercial.”  The Board was in agreement that the two could be combined with the “Sign, Off-Site being removed and the second stating “Sign, Off-Site – A sign with a message relating to a non-residential activity not conducted on the Lot on which the Sign is located.”
  • Town Counsel pointed out that the definition for Special Exception on page 18 is not correct and Kathy will work on a better definition.
  • Town Counsel recommended changing “one week prior” to “five (5) business days prior” in paragraph (3) on page 23.
  • Town Counsel suggested having Section 3.08 in the Site Plan Review Regulations and the Board agreed.
  • Town Counsel suggested changing the word “political” to “temporary” on page 41, paragraph (B)(1)(a).  Paul stated he would not be in favor of this change and would like to leave it as is.  The Board was in agreement to leave it as written.  Kathy then pointed out that on the same page in paragraph (C) (1) and (2) the “CC” and “ORBC” are cited.  The Board noted that the “CC” should be changed to “CB” in Section 3.09(C)(1).
  • Town Counsel suggested changing page 61, Paragraph (B)(4) to reference RSA 155A-1 or 2 instead of the Code itself so the Zoning Ordinance automatically updates when the code changes.  The Board agreed this would be a good idea.
  • Town Counsel suggested including text how and when this overlay was adopted on Page 107, Section 4.04 (A).  Kathy stated she would need to do some research on this adoption.
  • Under the Table of Permitted Uses, Kathy suggested changing all PR to P – Once a municipality adopts Site Plan Review Regulations, all non-residential uses and multi-family residential uses must go through Site Plan Review (RSA 674:43.I) so a category of Permitted with Review isn’t necessary.  Also, the way the table is currently printed, there are many uses that, by Statute, require Site Plan Review that have been exempted from review because of the way they are categorized in the table.  Charlie stated that he feels this would make it more difficult and the Board agreed to update the Table to show the correct uses that should be permitted with review.
  • Under the Table of Permitted Uses – uses not specified should not be allowed by Special Exception.  The Board agreed with this recommendation.
Charlie Doke motioned to continue this discussion to November 3, 2010, 2nd Jim Horgan.  Motion carried with all in favor.

  • Other Business To Come Before the Board:
  • Paul asked if the Board is ready to accept the Board schedule for 2011.  The Board was in agreement to review this at the next meeting.
  • Kathy provided the Board with a proposed wind turbine and outside wood heating ordinance for the Board to review and consider.
  • Kathy received and email from OEP noting that the NH Charitable Foundation has formed an online education program for Planning Board members and they are looking for volunteers to go to their site and review the manuals they have posted.
At 9:01pm, Charlie Doke motioned to adjourn, 2nd Jim Horgan.  Motion carried.

Respectfully Submitted,
Brandy Sanger
Recording Secretary


_________________________________________
Chairman, Paul Parker