Greenfield Planning Board Minutes
December 18, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Carrara, O’Connell, Halper, and Morris
Meeting opened at 7:12 pm
Chairman Carrara read aloud the minutes of 11 December, 2006, accepted with the following changes:
1) Page 2, bullet 2, line 6: “Variance” should be “Special Exception”
2) Page 2, bullet 4, line 5-6: “information of the receiving and other abutters must be included” shall be replaced by “all abutters must be notified”
3)Page 3, bullet 3: the access to the clearing is what has stone rip-rap, not the clearing itself.
O’Connell motioned to accept the minutes as amended, Halper seconded, all in favor.
York River, LLC subdivision violation
?O’Connell brought up that he feels that York River, LLC, has violated the subdivision approval by telling the Board one thing and then doing something else. Chairman Carrara referred to 676:4-a, I, b in the NH Planning and Land Use Regulation book. Paraphrasing, the law states that subdivision approval may be revoked if, the use of the land fails to conform to statements made to the Board, upon which approval was based. O’Connell suggested that the land owner should come before the board to answer some questions regarding the following points:
1) Siltation fences or driveway culverts have not been installed.
2) Vegetation has been stripped from upland areas that was agreed to be left as an erosion buffer.
3) The homes are being advertised as “duplex dwellings of condominium nature”, but they were presented to the Board as single family homes.
4) The lots were approved for 4,000 square foot septic systems, and the 6 bedroom duplexes may require larger systems.
?O’Connell was particularly upset that the land owner was against common driveways at the time of presentation, but now that the homes are advertised as duplexes they essentially function as common driveways. Chairman Carrara suggested that before the land owner is asked to appear before the Board, the Board should check if building permits have been issued. Carrara will talk to CEO Peter Hopkins.
Proposed Changes to Zoning Ordinances
Definitions
?O’Connell read aloud the proposed changes to the definitions of Frontage, Industry, Housing, Building Lot, Conservation Lot, and Contiguous Upland. Chairman Carrara disagreed with the proposed change to Building Lot (“a lot shall not contain any area with a width that is less than on half its minimum frontage length”), stating that it constricts creativity in lot shape, and that the government should not suppress the peoples desires for unordinary lot shapes. O’Connell suggested that the idea of a “Building Envelope”, as Amherst uses, or “footprint” that all residential infrastructure sits upon, could be beneficial to Greenfield and may be a good surrogate for the proposed change (above).
O’Connell will pursue more information. Minor changes were suggested to Conservation Lot and Contiguous Upland.
General Residence District
?Proposed Changes include reducing a houses capacity from 4 families to 1 with special exceptions. Chairman Carrara found this problematic and questioned the point. O’Connell argued that prior to enactment of Open Space Ordinances the proposed changes were already in place. After debate consensus was reached that no building can house more than 2 families.
Wetlands Setbacks
?O’Connell read aloud Proposed Changes to wetlands conservation district ordinances.
Halper suggested that “Prohibited Uses include but are not limited to the following” should be the title to the prohibited uses section, and added that there is no real good reason to state permitted uses. The removal of permitted uses from the ordinances was agreed upon by all.
Open Space
? Changes were discussed and will be resumed at the next meeting.
*Note on Town Meeting preparation
?Chairman Carrara brought up logistical organization regarding things that need to be done and voted on prior to the town meeting (March 16, 2007). His concern was that there may not be enough time to prepare for an initial January public hearing and a possible second public hearing if major changes were made after the first hearing.
Rural Agricultural Zoning
?Morris read the Rural Agricultural Zoning Ordinance saying that “no building will house more that 4 families as permanent residence.” He felt that those types of buildings do not reflect the rural character. Chairman Carrara felt that terminology is too loose and should be more consistent between ordinances.
Morris moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by O’Connell
Meeting adjourned at 10:04 pm.
| 
