ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
THURSDAY - FEBRUARY 3, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Neil Gosselin, Jr., Russell Stoakes, Randy Orvis, John David Aylard-Alternate Seated, Donna Gorney-Alternate Seated, Joanne Shompe
Absent: Margaret Russell -Absent with notification
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Steven Mayo-EquiVise LLC; Harold Peterson-EquiVise LLC; Helen Constantine, Charlie King, Kathy King, James Walbridge, Hiram Watson, Mark Fougere-Fougere Planning for EquiVise LLC; Greg Michael-Wiggin & Wourte; Joseph Doucet-EquiVise LLC; Lorraine Meyer, George Meyer, Ken Emerson, Verna Emerson-Abutter, Eric Pensen-EquiVise LLC, Scott Newcomb-Price-Wise Construction, LLC; Denise Roy-Palmer-WEDCO; Ken Hussey, Priscilla Crivelli, Pat Johnston, Mary Barron-Abutter, Butch Barron-Abutter
Vice Chairman Gosselin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS:
Minutes of the January 6, 2005 were reviewed, motion by Russell Stoakes, to approve as written, 2nd by Neil Gosselin, no discussion, all in favor, motion passes (note: Neil Gosselin motioned to approve 2nd by Russell Stoakes 2nd time). Russell Stoakes motions to table the Minutes of December 2, 2004, 2nd by John David Aylard, Randy Orvis noted he was not at previous meeting; minutes were tabled until the next monthly meeting of March 3, 2005, as all members present tonight were not present at the December 2, 2004 meeting and asked to have time to review.
Motion to adjourn 7:10 p.m. to non-public session to discuss the meaning of Special Exception with Attorney Tim Bates, 2nd by Russell Stoakes, all in favor, motion passes. Vice Chairman Gosselin asks the public to please leave the Selectmen's Chambers for this non-public session. Randy Orvis notes this is for definition of Special Exception. Attorney Tim Bates - particulars only, no specific details, no tape and no minutes need to be taken.
NEW BUSINESS:
Vice Chairman Gosselin called the meeting back to order at 7:40 p.m.
Application for "SPECIAL EXCEPTION" by Equivise, LLC of Nashua, NH; Property owners George & Lorraine Meyer (Tax Map R14, L022; 137 Acres); as provided under Section 2.00 of the Town of Farmington Zoning Ordinance to permit elderly housing complying with the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 as amended and with RSA 354-A:15 in an Industrial Business District (IB).
Attorney Michael came up to speak and Vice Chairman Gosselin interrupted the start of his presentation to advise Attorney Michael that it was brought to the boards attention that under the ordinance for Special Exceptions were in question, that the criteria of the Special Exception under the permissible uses be met, so therefore I request that during the discussion what type of use it actually is. Attorney Michael-it's vacant land right now, Vice Chairman Gosselin understands that they want to put in housing, Attorney Michael-would be happy to describe it as the presentation goes along. Vice Chairman Gosselin just wanted to bring the fact up that they are in question of the Special Exception; Randy Orvis interjects with an explanation of where Vice Chairman Gosselin is trying to go, first before you go into
the merits of your case you must first demonstrate to the Board members why this use is even allowed by a Special Exception, the board is not sure after reading the ordinance that this use is even allowed. Attorney Michael comments that he knows what the board is driving at as he has examined our ordinance to some detail, so in summary, merits of the argument 1st before the rest of the merits of the case in presentation. Attorney Michael they are looking for a mixed use; uplands still reserve frontage are for a continued "possible" IB use; there is a portion of AR land in the rear. Structure of ordinance - Special Exception arises out of table of use page 28 of the ordinance, where it talks about Special Exception criteria in 2 areas, 2.08D page 27; as well as section 2 of the ordinance, it is interesting that the Special Exception paragraphs that insert themselves into a full blown criteria as it is laid out in the ordinance. Their proposal is for
an age restricted-over 55-detached-condominium(s) that have 2 bedrooms each for a total of 140 units. These are not a detached single family age restricted home as referenced in the ordinance, they are not multi-family, they are not manufactured housing, none of the residential uses itemized in Section II or under Part A-Principal Uses-the use they are looking for does not fall under any of these categories, the category that it does fall under is the ominous category of "residential uses not specified". Attorney Michael further discusses the merits of his application for the Special Exception for Age Restricted Housing in the IB District.
Vice Chairman Gosselin-Question to Attorney Michael- Are elderly people not considered a family? Is it not restrictive on age discriminating against people under the age of 55, but the ordinance does not state anything about elderly people-refers only to a single family dwelling, so it would still be considered a single family dwelling depending on age. Attorney Michael - Mr. Chairman you can certainly interpret how ever you would like, but most towns / places distinguish elderly housing. It is a distinguishing identifying form of housing, because of its unique properties. Attorney Michael questions why is "residential uses not specified" in our ordinances and what is that definition. If the board takes the position that this does not fall under the "residential uses not
specified" then they will be under a Variance scenario and not a Special Exception scenario. The next issue will be if they could satisfy the Variance criteria(s), which would be a different application with different criteria beginning with the 5 Variance criteria. The board needs to grapple with that issue before myself or the other folks present here tonight make presentation. Vice Chairman Gosselin asks if Attorney Michael considers these rest homes- responds no. These are single family detached with an elderly restriction; these are not standard homes; there will be covenants and restrictions, recorded at the Registry of Deeds, annual census required, there are ways to monitor and regulate these types of homes. The word elderly changes everything i.e. traffic, demographics, the whole scope of the project. Russell Stoakes questions Attorney Michael's statement "other towns take the elderly into consideration in their zoning ordinances"
-yes in higher densities, they usually have an overlay zone in certain areas, the school population is almost zero, our economic study will show those results. Attorney Michael and some of the board members continue their discussions about certain facts of the elderly housing in the New Hampshire area as well as the Town of Farmington allowances according the permitted land uses chart.
Vice Chairman Gosselin states, before the decision is made as to whether or not is age related or not, he opens the floor for discussion and questions to the applicant or the board either for or against this proposal.
Butch Barron - Route 11 abutter, doesn't see any issue against it. Does not feel why the board is so adamant and negative against it, as this land is not suited for much else.
Ken Hussey - Abutter to the land that goes out into the backside, his only concern is keeping right-of-way to his property.
James Walbridge - Route 11, abutter and does not see any problem with housing going in as he doesn't see any industry going in and the land just sits.
Charlie King - Wants to point out to the board that the application is a great idea for the community - in reviewing the Special Exception the board needs to be clear that it is consistent with permitted use of the zone and fits with the permitted uses.
Randy Orvis - comments about the inception of the ordinance 3-4 years ago, it was a big transition for Farmington, prior to this ordinance the Town of Farmington was very permissive without lists of allowed uses, most towns have more stringent lists of acceptable uses and if it's not on the list then it's not allowed. This is a remnant of the previous permissive ordinance.
Vice Chairman Gosselin closes the discussion portion to the public so that the board can have discussions amongst themselves to see if the application fits the criteria of the Special Exception.
Randy Orvis motions to hear the application, 2nd by John David Aylard, Attorney Tim Bates asks if he may interjects for just one moment and suggests that for a clear record for all concerned that the motion should be refined that this elderly housing is a use permitted by Special Exception in the IB Zone, make a clear declarative finding so everyone knows what the board is doing. Vice Chairman Gosselin makes a motion that this elderly housing is a Special Exception under the IB Zone, Randy Orvis - my motion died; Vice Chairman Gosselin take a vote on it; Randy Orvis asks what we are voting on; Vice Chairman Gosselin - to hear it; Randy Orvis-no; your motion Vice Chairman or my motion; Suggestion from the public to have the Vice Chairman make a friendly motion to Randy Orvis motion; Vice Chairman Gosselin makes a
friendly amendment to Randy Orvis motion and Randy Orvis accepts the friendly amendment, as long as the 2nd does accept. "Randy Orvis made the motion to hear the Special Exception, Vice Chairman Gosselin made a friendly amendment that the board determined that the elderly housing is the allowed use, under the Special Exception Criteria, so the board will hear the Special Exception", any further discussion, all in favor, motion passes.
Vice Chairman Gosselin opens the floor back to the public to now hear the Special Exception proposal.
8:11 p.m.
Attorney Michael - now takes the board through an overview of the background of this proposal. The proposal is to take 140 acres of land of which 100 are in the IB Zone and 40 in the AR Zone. Set-up an age restricted-140 units, previously 200 units now reduced down to the 140. Attorney Michael presents and discusses the merits of an elderly housing development. This type of housing usually results in a positive tax impact for towns, we have actual results, which will be shown by Mr. Fougere. Attorney Michael discusses in much greater detail the proposed uses and comments the Special Exception criteria that shows a litany of standard criteria under section 2.0 of the ordinance, listing a number of items, the 1st one sends you back to the original section where you begin to see if that has
criteria, then that has a listing of 3-4 additional criteria's. Attorney Michael refers to section 2.8 D, and section 2.09 Table of Permitted uses and the interpretations of those, he relates Zoning as a big paint brush, you take the brush and swoop over an area and often times cut over properties. Attorney Michaels' discussion continues in great detail and length with regards to the benefits of allowing such a development of a residential neighborhood, having private road development, condo association, common areas, covenants that will be maintained, municipal water available, possibility of individual septic systems that conform to each lot property values increase, tax base increase, and no impact on the abutting properties; in the Town of Farmington also refers to other similar type developments that he has been involved in around the State of New Hampshire and how well they have been received.
Mark Fougere, Land Use Consultant-Fougere Planning representing EquiVise LLC; he prepared a fiscal impact analysis for the board giving each member a copy of such. This analysis shows what type of revenue streams and costs can be anticipated. Uses a per capita multiplier method which is the standard fiscal reporting that planners use. Mr. Fougere details what the development will consist of (i.e. municipal water, on-site septic, over 55 age restricted community, 2 bedroom single family home with club house for the residents, no children will be able to live there, conditions for summer time stays will be written, no children will impact the school system). Tax rate of the community is outlined on page 2 of the analysis. Average cost of home $220K; projects will be assessed at 100% of value, this
project will generate $477K worth of income, a key source of revenue would be motor vehicle registration; 2003 showed $769K, per capita break down $26K, the Town of Farmington is looking at and estimated revenue of the project around $500K. Mr. Fougere continues with his detailed discussion of impact and financial gains that would come from this project.
Vice Chairman Gosselin asks for public comments either for or against this proposed project. Vice Chairman Gosselin asks the board members if they have any questions at this time? Randy Orvis asks where the zone line for the split of the AR Zone is, Attorney Michael-2000 feet back from Route 11, approximately 40 acres back, of which 100 are IB and 40 are AR, it is a split zone. Russell Stoakes asks how many acres per unit, Attorney Michael-around 1 acre each, quick calculation.
Randy Orvis suggests a site walk be undertaken to walk the property and see exactly where the proposed project is located and then make a decision at the next meeting.
A member of the public interjects that he has been all over that property since he's been 11 years old, his Grandmother owned the land, the land is hilly, goes straight up at certain points, there are springs on the land, there are areas that could be low lying areas, some of it is swampy and the applicant is correct that they would have to pick and choose where the placement of homes will be, blasting will have to be done, there are ledges this land is very harsh as far as industrial building goes. Homes to be built can be juggled around to fit the land whereas industrial/commercial building cannot.
George Meyer interjects that he has owned the land for over 20 years and for those 20 years has been trying to develop it commercially which has deemed impossible, he has had firms as far away as Canada look at the land and walk away, very expensive to commercialize.
Russell Stoakes interjects that the board has already determined that it fits the table; now the board needs to apply 2 - 6 of the ordinance to see if it fits those requirements.
Attorney Tim Bates interrupts to offer a comment in follow-up with the Attorney's presentation and what Russell Stoakes commented, that in addition to the criteria that Russell Stoakes pointed out that also the finding needs to be consistent under section 2.08 D when the board makes its decision to keep this section in mind as well.
Vice Chairman Gosselin closes the meeting to the public at this time to allow the board discussion on the application. 8:50 p.m. Russell Stoakes suggest the discussion of Section D; Vice Chairman Gosselin reads from section D 2.08, and the board members go through each of the permitted uses of the zone.
John David Aylard motions to continue this to the next meeting of March 3, 2005 and to site-walk the proposed development by the board members on Saturday, February 12, 2005, at 9:00a.m. 2nd by Randy Orvis, all those in favor, motion passes.
Vice Chairman Neil Gosselin motions to adjourn for 5 minutes, 2nd by Randy Orvis, all those in favor, motion passes. 9:13p.m.
9:25p.m. Vice Chairman Neil Gosselin makes a motion to the board to change the order of the proposed agenda, to hear Price-Wise Construction LLC next and then WCV, Inc. 2nd by Russell Stoakes,
Application for Variance by: Price-Wise Construction, LLC to permit the reduction of the setbacks of frontage and side setbacks (Tax map R6, Lot 193), located on Camelot Shore Drive in the Lancelot Subdivision.
Scott Newcomb presents for himself, the request of setbacks from 25 feet to 15 feet for a single-family residence located at lot 193 Camelot Shore Drive. Vice Chairman Gosselin states that the board has dealt with several different variances of the same nature throughout this sub-division. Randy Orvis reviews the Septic plan to determine the placement of the house and argues that the applicant can meet the required setbacks of the zone, if he positions the house slightly different. Randy Orvis explains that a variance is an allowance to break the law and after review of the plan Randy Orvis cannot grant a variance when the applicant can meet the required setbacks.
Vice Chairman Gosselin opens the meeting to the public for comments either for or against the application.
Charlie King - Randy Orvis is right; basically the applicant needs to prove that he cannot meet the setbacks, there could be situations out there that might not allow him to do it the way he wants, however the applicant needs to provide information that the setbacks cannot be met.
Kathy King - This lot sits on a hill and behind it a house sits way up on the hill. She questions, if the applicant is required to move the house wouldn't he need to do a whole new septic and wouldn't that prove to be a hardship case?
Randy Stoakes motions to continue to the next ZBA meeting of 03/03/2005, 2nd by Neil Gosselin, all those in favor, motion passes.
Randy Orvis now rescues himself from the next application and Vice Chairman Gosselin seats Joanne Shompe.
Action on WCV, Inc. motion for re-hearing on the decision of December 8, 2004 (Tax Map R53, Lot 13):
Vice Chairman Gosselin, bring John David Aylard and the other board members (with the assistance of Paul Esswein) up to date on this application. He also relays the conversation(s) that he had with Attorney Laura Spector and Attorney Puffer.
Vice Chairman Gosselin motions to rehear this application, 2nd by Russell Stoakes, all those in favor, motion passes.
Vice Chairman Gosselin amends the motion to include the date of March 3, 2005 meeting for the rehearing of the WCV, Inc. application, 2nd by Russell Stoakes, all those in favor, motion passes.
Vice Chairman Gosselin motions to adjourn, 2nd by John David Aylard, all those in favor, motion passes. 10:07p.m.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN WITH CHANGE ON PAGE 3, 4TH LINE DOWN - CHANGE THE WORD SITES TO SITS; 03/03/2005.
APPROVED:
_____________________________________ _________________
Neil Gosselin, Jr. Vice Chairman Date
Farmington Zoning Board Of Adjustment
| 
