ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
THURSDAY – DECEMBER 1, 2005
356 MAIN STREET - FARMINGTON, NH
Members Present: Elmer W. "Butch" Barron III, Gerald McCarthy, John David Aylard,
Barry Elliott-Alternate, Donna Gorney-Alternate, Joanne Shompe-Alternate
Absent: Randy Orvis – without notification, Neil Gosselin, Jr. – without notification,
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: William Gifford, John Daly-Attorney w/Pierce Atwood, Ed Fasould, Arthur Hoover Attorney w/Alton Law Offices, Wendy & Scott Drew, Marjorie B. Barron, Bill Baxter Susan Loker, Peter Alfe, Jim Horgan-Planning Board, Lorriane Meyer, John Quinn-Fosters Daily Democrat, Thomas W. Taylor, Sr., Patience Taylor, Marilyn Robicheau, Charlie King-Planning Board, Joanne Blinkinsop, Jill M. Tozier, Siobhan Cardinal,
2 signatures not legible
(please note that although the attendance sheet requests that names be printed, the public continues to write and
some of the writing is not legible therefore spellings could possibly be wrong.)
6:05 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
Members of the board conferred with Town of Farmington Attorney prior to opening meeting.
6:52 p.m.
Discussion of a request for continuance and action regarding EquiVise, LLC (Tax Map R14, Lot 022); Elderly Age Restricted Housing Project, Route 11, Farmington, NH located in the (IB) Industrial Business District.
Chairman Barron opens the meeting and asks Paul Esswein to summarize the EquiVise, LLC request. Paul Esswein speaks on the details of the applicants’ request primarily to keep density dialogue open.
Chairman Barron seats Barry Elliot for Randy Orvis and seats Donna Gorney for Neil Gosselin, Jr.
Chairman Barron motions to grant the continuance as requested, 2nd Barry Elliot, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion carries.
Request for a rehearing by: North American Training Lodge “N. A. T. L.” (Tax Map R58, Lot 11 and Tax Map R65, Lot 2); Property known as Aiken Road; located in the (AR) Agricultural Residential Zoning District; to develop and operate a Homeland Defense Training and Shooting Facility.
Chairman Barron recuses himself from this application and seats Gerald McCarthy to chair; Gerald McCarthy seats Joanne Shompe for Chairman Barron. Gerald McCarthy begins by asking if all the members have received a copy of the motion for rehearing; Barry Elliott replies that he spent an extensive amount of time reading and reviewing and nothing looks any different that previously submitted; John David Aylard I have read the document and there is no new evidence provided, does not change my mind; Donna Gorney nothing in the document to change my mind, nothing different, Joanne Shompe I agree, nothing different, does not change my mine; Gerald McCarthy I went through and read closely nothing new, Barry Elliott motions to deny the request for rehearing, 2nd Donna Gorney, no further discussion, all those in favor,
motion carries.
Gerald McCarthy reseats Chairman Barron; Chairman Barron unseats Joanne Shompe.
Continuation of hearing – request for variance by Scott and Wendy Drew (Tax Map R49, Lot 009-1_); To allow sub-division of 2.83 acres in the (SR-1) Suburban Residential 1 Zoning District, into 3-residential house lots and to further discuss easement dimensions.
Attorney Hoover asks Chairman Barron if the Executive Session they entered into was to discuss the application of his clients Wendy and Scott Drew, Chairman Barron replied they conferred with the Town Attorney for clarity issues.
Attorney Hoover begins by advising the members of the board that he does not feel it necessary to go into any lengthy discussion and will only review from the last meeting; his 1st issue is the districts SR and SR-1 Zoning; Attorney Hoover commented that the last hearing Gerald McCarthy disagreed with Attorney Hoovers distinction; he refers to section 2.02 and 2.03. Attorney Hoover defends the municipal water availability and the differences for SR-1 and SR Zone and the rights that it should be considered. He further argues a special condition of the property is the mistake that was made by the error on the plan as recorded at the registry of deeds.
Chairman Barron – my point of view is the distinction and the intent; discusses the public water availability; Chairman Barron asks for comments from the board members; Gerald McCarthy - questions the 50’ of roadway included in the lot sizes; Chairman Barron - depends on how you read the plan; Attorney Hoover - yes it is R. O. W.; Chairman Barron – that is not considered part; Attorney Hoover - I’ve discussed with the Town of Farmington Attorney previously; Gerald McCarthy – asks Attorney Hoover if the dimensions he’s showing are included in the plan; Attorney Hoover – yes; Chairman Barron – comments on the hardship and the fact that a mistake was made does not mean it should be perpetuated.
Mrs. Drew addresses the board and asks Chairman Barron for clarification on the criteria.
Attorney Hoover – discusses the review process prior to the appointment of Paul Esswein and that the error should have been caught prior to the Planning Board approval.
Chairman Barron calls for review of the 5 criteria:
(1) There would/would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the granting of this variance; Chairman Barron, Barry Elliott, John David Aylard agree there would not be.
(2) The granting of this variance would/would not be contrary to the public interest; Chairman Barron – the road area is not useable by any purpose; Paul Esswein – remaining land lots would be ¾ acre; argument putting forward is availability of utilities; you could grant variance with road in smaller ¾ acre parcels. Chairman Barron does not believe it is contrary to the public interest as does John David Aylard
(3) Since (a) and (b); Donna Gorney – qualifies for a hardship; Chairman Barron asks her why she believes this; Donna Gorney – because they depended on professionals and it’s no fault of their own; Chairman Barron – still is not a hardship created by the ordinance. Barry Elliott – discusses the fact of availability of water throughout the Town of Farmington. Gerry McCarthy – understands where the applicant is coming from and the mistakes that were made by professionals; he questions the inclusion of the roadway. Mrs. Drew makes comments about the mistakes made by the professionals they hired and the
mistakes by the professionals of the Town of Farmington.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice (would – would not) be done because; Chairman Barron polls the members of the board – any harm - no; substantial justice – some have problems.
(5) The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance (would – would not) be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because; Chairman Barron polls the members of the board; comments heard “no”.
Attorney Hoover interjects he heard 2 areas identified; “granting of the variance would be substantial justice and the spirit of the ordinance that states 1 acre lots with water available to be reduced, no water, no reduction. Barry Elliott defends large open space area; John David Aylard addresses his feelings on the “intent”.
Chairman Barron asks for any further discussion;
Barry Elliott motions to deny the variance based on criteria 3 – hardship rules; no special conditions as listed in A & B – can derive same benefits; criteria 5 – contrary to ordinance spirit and intent; 2nd Gerald McCarthy; Chairman Barron asks for any further discussion; Gerald McCarthy asks about Route 11 going into the property; Paul Esswein – none of the state R. O. W. included; no further discussion; all those in favor, Donna Gorney and John David Aylard opposed; Chairman Barron, Barry Elliott and Gerald McCarthy favor.
John David Aylard motions for a 5-minute recess, 2nd Donna Gorney, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
7:45 p.m.
Application for a Use variance By: Peter Alfe, (Tax Map R03, Lot 004); Request to operate a wholesale/retail Lumber, Marble and Granite facility; Located in the (ORB) Office Research Business Zoning District; property known as 115 N. H. Route 11.
Peter Alfe presents on his own behalf; begins introduction advising of his ownership of the La Contadina Restaurant on Main Street and this application he is requesting as it is not an allowed use in the district and he’s looking for a variance to that; he is now getting into another area of business to open for his facility on Route 11 that he has tried to rent / lease out to various entities / individuals to no avail. He discusses the high-end materials that he will be carrying. Clarification question on the exact location is asked; Peter Alfe replies it is the red building and yellow house that he would like to transform into a showroom; he bought this site from Todd Lefevre approximately 6 years ago. Peter Alfe relates that he has spoken with several lumberyards in the area regarding the
product he is intending on carrying. He further elaborates that he’s not had the best luck in renting the facility; there has been several operations that have not been successful as well as tenants that damaged interior of the house.
John David Aylard – I perform services for someone that knows Peter Alfe and I want to make sure that I’m not creating a conflict, no conflict heard.
Paul Esswein relates that an application for an auto dealership was submitted and denied as the prior same use had lapsed. Chairman Barron asks if the prior use abandoned? Paul Esswein the only use to consider is residential.
Barry Elliott – if variance granted would this go to the Planning Board for Site Review and all setbacks and such remain; Paul Esswein – yes.
Chairman Barron – asks for the facts supporting the application and asks the applicant to read his responses to the applications 5 criteria questions.
Joanne Shompe asks if the house will be used for Milling; Peter Alfe – no, moldings, decking and small items.
John David Aylard – asks if this will be a general facility to store items; Peter Alfe – small amount of product will be brought up from the facility in Massachusetts as needed.
Chairman Barron goes through each of the criteria:
(1) There (would – would not) be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the
granting of this variance because; Joanne Shompe asks how close are surrounding properties; Peter Alfe – details what is in the surrounding area; Joanne Shompe I see no diminution; all board members agree.
(2) The granting of this variance (would – would not) be contrary to the public interest because;
Joanne Shompe – if Mills were going in then I’d have a different opinion; showroom is okay; John David Aylard - add as a stipulation; Gerry McCarthy – ORB Zoning District is not an allowed use; Paul Esswein reads uses and allowances; Chairman Barron – asks the applicant to define light manufacturing on site; will it be 1 small piece or 10,000 feet per day. Discussion about light manufacturing.
(3) Since (a), (b), and (c); Barry Elliott – does interfere; zoning restriction does interfere with the use of the property; Gerry McCarthy – doesn’t think it interferes, he can live in the house; Paul Esswein makes comment to the board and reads the definition of the ordinance.
Chairman Barron opens to the public for comment; Charlie King, Chairman, Farmington Planning Board comments that Paul Esswein brought up interesting point; on Spring Street there is a Lumber Mill; our table of permitted uses conflicts itself, the ORB Zoning District was created to have a lesser environmental impact on the area where the aquifers and watershed protection areas are in the surrounding locations.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice (would – would not) be done because; Gerry McCarthy
discusses Peter Alfes’ rights as a property owner; Joanne Shompe asks how long applicant has owned the property – Peter Alfe – 6 to 7 years.
(5) The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance (would – would not) be
contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because; The board members discuss restrictions and having this reverted back to the Planning Board; Gerry McCarthy – not contrary as long as stipulation is made “no chemicals”; Donna Gorney – if the variance was granted with stipulations and then 10-15 years down the road change of ownership happens, does the Town of Farmington go back and re-check; Paul Esswein advises that bi-annually the water department and the DES check for inconsistencies as the location is in the aquifer and watershed protection area.
Chairman Barron asks for restrictions; Gerry McCarthy – storage and use of paint and chemicals and items of similar environmental impact, Chairman Barron states that we can stipulate that there will be no bulk storage and retail sales only.
Barry Elliott motions to grant the variance based on the following stipulations;
1) No use of chemicals of any type for manufacturing
2) No storage of any of the aforementioned (as read by Donna Gorney as listed in the ordinance), no bulk, only unopened cans for package sales
3) Does not include any type of building paint
2nd John David Aylard, any further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
Review and approve Meeting Minutes of 11-03-2005:
Chairman Barron calls for approval of the minutes; Barry Elliott addresses page 4 of 5 – 1st paragraph; does not recall making that statement; some discussion about the content; decision to remove the line from the minutes; Gerry McCarthy motions to approve the meeting minutes as amended; 2nd Donna Gorney, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
8:56 p.m.
Barry Elliott motions to adjourn, 2nd Donna Gorney, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
APPROVED AS AMENDED; 12-01-2005;
Page 1 of 6 – UNDER 6:05 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. - Remove “NON-PUBLIC SESSION ON VARIOUS LEGAL MATTERS PER RSA 91-A:3 II (e)” AND REPLACE WITH “Conferred with Town of Farmington Attorney prior to opening meeting”.
Page 4 of 6 – 5th TYPED LINE; REWORD “I PERFORM SERVICES FOR SOMEONE THAT KNOWS PETER ALFE’ AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I’M NOT CREATING A CONFLICT.”
__________________________________________ ______________________
Elmer W. “Butch” Barron, III – Chairman Date
Farmington Zoning Board of Adjustment
| 
