Farmington Zoning Board deadlocks, denies request for 80‑lot Apex subdivision

The Farmington Zoning Board of Adjustment failed to approve a requested variance for a proposed subdivision on Feb. 5, leaving the applicant without relief after a series of tied votes.

Apex Land Solutions sought relief from Table 2.01(B) of the town zoning ordinance to allow smaller residential lots and reduced frontage on Map R14, Lot 22, a roughly 139‑acre parcel split between the Commercial Business zone near Route 11 and the Agricultural Residential (AR) zone farther back. Company representative Ryan Heath told the board the concept would create as many as 80 residential lots served by municipal water and individual septic systems, preserve about 29.5 acres as permanent conservation and retain about 22.5 acres of commercial frontage along Route 11.

Heath argued strict enforcement of the AR rules — a 3‑acre minimum lot size and 250 feet of frontage per lot — would require roughly 3,800 feet of frontage and about $1 million in infrastructure at an estimated $315 per linear foot, making the development economically infeasible. "The smallest lots are 30,000 SF," Heath said, and the use of municipal water would reduce contiguous‑building‑area constraints that apply to lots without public water.

Opponents, including nearby residents, raised concerns about public‑safety and environmental impacts. Jackson Drive resident Ron Boisvert pointed to the parcel's location inside Farmington's Wellhead Protection Area and asked, "So now you're going to put 80 septic systems?" He also questioned access geometry at Route 11 and whether the project would require state right‑of‑way changes for a turn lane. Resident and Planning Board member Charlie King urged the board to weigh the five statutory variance criteria carefully, saying granting the request would "totally undermine" the intent of the Agricultural Residential district.

Heath responded that the applicant's survey and test pits found no ledge, that the firm consulted aggregate experts and that state DOT approval would be required for any driveway or lane changes: "DOT will dictate all of that and that will have to be obtained by us completely through the planning process or this will all be null and void," he said. He also named Tighe & Bond as the engineers who would handle stormwater design and noted the planning review would require test pits and other engineering work that could reduce the preliminary lot count.

The board voted separately on the five variance tests required under state law. The results recorded in the minutes were: public interest — passed 3‑1; spirit of the ordinance — tied 2‑2 (failed); substantial justice — tied 2‑2 (failed); effect on surrounding property values — passed 4‑0; and literal enforcement/hardship — tied 2‑2 (failed). Chairman John Scruton explained that because the subsequent motions to deny and to grant the overall variance each produced 2‑2 ties, both motions failed and "a tie vote fails" under the board's rules. The minutes state the applicant left the meeting after the outcome.

The hearing record shows multiple procedural and technical issues remain unresolved: state DOT access approvals, compliance with town road design standards (minutes note a town road standard limiting dead‑end streets to 900 feet and a 20‑lot cap for cul‑de‑sacs), stormwater/runoff controls, and the Wellhead Protection Area. Several residents and board members said those issues are likely to be considered again at the Planning Board/site‑review stage if the project proceeds.

No new approvals were recorded; the board adjourned at 8:41 p.m.