Greenfield Planning Board Minutes
November 27, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Carrara, Halper, Rainer, O’Connell, Bordon, Morris, and Steere sitting in for Fletcher
Meeting opened at 7:19…
…After Joe Trudeau was hired. He agreed to provide 6 months of minute-taking at the rate of $12.00/hr
Minutes for November 13—Minutes were read aloud by Halper and accepted by all.
Mail:
1) BOS minutes from 11/16 and 11/9/2006
2) Greenfield Building Permits update
3) UNH training for “Keeping your Operation Going in an Emergency and Crisis” (March 23rd)
4) Receipt for Landmark Planning and Development
5) Email from Kathy Carpenter regarding internet services
Visit from Peter Hopkins at 7:20
?Peter Hopkins stopped by and was wondering what the status was of the Warrant Articles. He mentioned development on Swamp Road and commented on brush and tree cutting at the driveway. Further discussion was made on the fence at East Rd and 31. A potential subdivision (3 lots) on S. Francestown Road was discussed. Test pits are being dug. Chairman Carrara mentioned that he was waiting for an email about the hallway still.
?Steere brought up potential lot clearing on County Rd. According to Peter, no building permit has been issued.
?Halper again voiced concern over a fence across from his house being of a safety issue to motorists.
?Hopkins discussed statewide standards for building codes and his support for adopting statewide standards. International Code says that a building is any structure 200 square feet and up, not the 100 square feet used by Greenfield. Hopkins suggested that Greenfield adopt the Int’l code. Halper voiced concern over lost revenue due to issuing fewer permits. Others voiced concern over taxation. Hopkins brought up that Quanset Huts are not taxed. Discussion closed at 7:46.
Public Hearing with Jeff Emman from PSNH at 7:48
?Emman, a PSNH arborist, met the Board in regards to tree cutting on Schoolhouse Road. O’Connell stated that he adequately notified the public that the hearing would be held tonight. One member of the public was present whom accompanied Emman to the hearing. Emman discussed a ‘mid-span pole’ that needed to be installed to supply a new customer. Two trees would be cut: a 12” white pine and a 16” red oak; neither are of commercial sawtimber value. Trees on private land were also being felled. All trees have been marked with orange flagging. Board members agreed that there was no need to visit the site. The hearing was opened and closed to the public as there was no public comment nor was there any
written correspondence. Steere moved to approve the tree cutting by PSNH on Schoolhouse Rd. All Board members were in favor. Discussion closed at 8:00 pm.
Other Business:
?Minor discussion on building trends were made, including the 500 home development in Milford.
?Halper suggested discussion be had on defining ‘major’ and ‘minor’ subdivisions, but decided it be done when Fletcher was present.
?On the issue of Wetland Setback Buffers: Proposed Amendments were distributed for reading at 8:05 pm. Chairman Carrara asked for comment from the Board. Morris asked what the necessity is of increasing the buffer. Rainier responded that a very official handbook (numerous credentialed authors/contributors) suggests that 100 feet is a reasonable minimum buffer width. Rindge and Milford’s Wetland Zoning Ordinances were brought up by O’Connell; those towns have more detailed plans. Chairman Carrara voiced his argument against the Proposal, saying it is “too much”. Steere suggested 50’ minimum on all and 75’ on certain sites with very wet, boggy areas, adding that 50’ is a “reasonable
minimum” and that putting a road/driveway through the enlarged buffer would be easier than smaller buffers. Members added that Milford, Rindge, and Francestown all have 100’ minimums, and Rindge has 250’ minimums for certain uses. O’Connell added that overfertilization (Nitrogen loading) is s statewide problem. Again Rindge’s Zoning Ordinances were brought up regarding snow and ice dumping. Discussion was made on the logistics involved in adopting the amendments and subsequent changes. O’Connell agreed to “do the wording” on the amendment. A misspelling was noted (2.a. line 3; “shall be shall be”). Steere suggested that sections of the Rindge Zoning Ordinances be added to the Proposed Amendments, specifically those pertaining to automobile junkyards and salt storage areas. Copies of the Rindge Zoning Ordinances were distributed by O’Connell.
Section 5 (“Prohibited Uses”) was discussed as some points may be useful additions to the Proposed Amendments. Subsection B shall not be added. Chairman Carrara asked how Subsection D would be measured/enforced; Steere suggested that it would be important to adopt the measure, especially as the town develops; concerns were then raised by Morris that it would be a hard ordinance to regulate. It was agreed to leave the portion in. Subsections A, C, D, E, F, G and H were agreed to be useful additions as-is, except that the words “outside the district” would be removed from Subsection G. Steere moves to adopt the Proposed Amendments with the aforementioned additions. Halper moved that Section 7 Subsection B of the same Rindge document shall be added to the Proposed Amendments. All members were in favor after vote. (See final page of Minutes for those
Sections)
?At 9:11 pm a discussion of the size of building lots began. O’Connell read some of Hollis’ Ordinances. Halper suggested that the discussion be held at a later date.
?Adding Power of Attorney to the checklist was mentioned
?Allowing for nonconforming lots for conservation easements was discussed. It was brought up that changing Zoning Ordinances to allow for nonconforming lots for conservation purposes would not hurt anything. Some concern of breaking higher level (state) ordinances was voiced, but there was still support for the idea. Morris suggested that any nonconforming lot should be mandated to be held under a Conservation Easement to eliminate later owners from taking the lot out of conservation.
?At 9:25 the Board went back to the 200 square foot building size issue. Chairman Carrara liked Hopkins’ idea to change from the 100’ town code to the 200’ state building code. The issue will go to town vote to rescind the town rule and adopt the state code. Steere moved to vote on the issue, it was voted on and accepted by the Board.
? Within Subdivision Regulations, the topic of determining wetlands within a subdivision was then discussed. A debate was had over whether or not to have a soil scientist determine wetlands or Board Ocular Evaluation. The wording “should” was changed to “must” regarding that at least 2 acres of the lot are dry uplands.
? The Open Space Ordinance was discussed. Due to ongoing negotiations with Land Mark, alterations of the Ordinance should be discussed with legal counsel. O’Connell suggested that the Ordinance is removed to the Zoning Ordinances and Chairman Carrara consult counsel.
A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and confirmed at 9:45 pm.
Taken From: Rindge, NH Wetland Conservation District Ordinance
SECTION 5 PROHIBITED USES
A. No building or impervious surface shall be established or expanded in or within 50 feet of the high water mark of surface waters or wetlands.
B. No new septic system or leach field shall be located within 100 feet to the high water mark of surface waters or wetlands.
C. No dredging, filling, draining, or otherwise altering the surface configuration of surface waters, wetlands, or lands with the WCD shall be permitted unless a Special Exception is granted by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Section 8 of this Ordinance.
D. No net increase in peak flow or overall volume of storm water runoff into wetlands as a result of any development shall be allowed: Calculations to be based o a 25 year storm event.
E. No establishment or expension of salt storage yards, automobile junk yards, or solid or hazardous waste facilities shall take place in or within 250 feet of the high water mark of surface waters or wetlands.
F. No underground or above ground bulk storage of chemicals, petroleum products or hazardous materials shall take place in or within 250 feet of the high water mark of surface waters or wetlands.
G. No dumping or disposal of snow and ice collected from roadways or parking areas outside the district shall take place in or within 250 of the high water mark of the wetlands.
H. No fertilizer, except limestone, shall be used within 250 feet of the high water mark of surface waters or wetlands. Twenty-five feet beyond the reference line, low phosphate, slow release nitrogen fertilizer or limestone, may be used on lawnsor areas with grass.
SECTION 7 SPECIAL PROVISIONS
B. Any prior existing nonconforming use of land or buildings on or adjoining wetlands shall be deemed a nonconforming use and when such use is discontinued for one year, such land and/or buildings become subject to the Wetlands Conservation District Ordinance.
| 
