Greenfield Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Carrara, Rainier, O’Connell, Borden, Morris, and Steere sitting in for Fletcher
Meeting opened at 7:14
Minutes for November 27- Minutes were read aloud by Trudeau at 7:15. Minutes were accepted with the following changes:
-Quonset Huts discussed by Hopkins (Code Enforcement Officer) are specifically plastic and canvas huts, not metal.
-“hallway” as mentioned by Hopkins should be “Hall Way”
Morris motioned to accept minutes, minutes were accepted by all.
Mail:
1) Updated Budget *
2) “A step-by-step guide to understanding easements”
3) Letter from Runge Law Office, P.C. looking for clients
4) Copy of plat recording from Meridian Land Services, for land owned by Dan and Lenora Laguerre on Higgins Lane
5) NH Floodplain Management Handbook from OEP
*Note: Changes to Budget include increasing clerical allowance from $300 to $1400, and office equipment decreased from $500 to $100.
?At 7:25 pm Morris and Steere brought up the Laguerre plat received from Meridian, noting that the 0.188 acre lot had a neighbor’s propane tank on it.
Presentation by Daniel & Robert Pratt regarding subdivision on Blanchard Hill Rd. at 7:30
?Chairman Carrara opened the session at 7:30 pm. He began by describing the forthcoming process to the general public, and requested that no comment be made until Board vote was made. O’Connell adequately notified the public of the meeting in local newspapers and at town office locations. A Public sign-up sheet was distributed.
?Dave O’Hara, representing the Pratts, began that this is the 4th year of trying to subdivide this land. Three proposed building sites, with two new building lots are on the new plats submitted at this meeting. The largest lot (22ac) is to be conveyed to an abutter, two ~5acre lots and a 16.05 acre lot (which was previously two lots) were presented on the plats. O’Hara asked for a clarification between a major and minor subdivision. Chairman Carrara explained that major is more than 3 lots. Morris explained that a minor is less than three lots with no future subdivision allowed. O’Hara noted that after attaining DES approval they wish to further divide the 16 acre lot into more smaller lots. O’Hara then
explained the test pit locations on the plat. O’Hara asked for 7 waivers listed below:
1) Sec V-1, Performance Guarantees
2) Sec VI-B,2, Para. H, Soil Data
3) Sec VI,B,3,Para. B, Construction Plans
4) Sec VI,B,4,Para a,c,d, Drainage & Utility Plans
5) Sec VI,B,6, Subdivision Grading & Drainage Plans
6) Sec IX,G, Para 1,3,4,5,6, High Intensity Soil Survey
7) Sec VIII. Drainage
?In a previous request the applicants asked for a back lot approval, but not in the current request. However, after DES approval and division of the 16 acre parcel he will ask for a back lot approval. O’Connell asked for clarification of how many lots were being created. The 22 acre lot to be conveyed to the abutter could be considered a back lot.
?Chairman Carrara read Carol Ogilvie’s (a consultant to the Board) letter to the Board, which described the subdivision plan, though slightly different regarding number of lots. Steere noted that the large lot has insufficient road frontage to qualify as a lot on its own. Steere suggested that it could be considered a back lot. The issue of further subdivision of the 16 acre lot with a back lot was brought up, and that the access is through a wetland buffer requires a variance in the future. Morris suggested that the future issues are not at hand now and there is no need to discuss them now. John Cronin, attorney for O’Hara, clarified that any lot can only have one back lot.
?Chairman Carrara moved on to the Subdivision Checklist, reading aloud and reviewed by the Board. All points were sufficient except the following:
1) Lot R7-23-6 does not have Book and Page
2) 75’ well radius on Parcel 4 (22 acre)
3) Wetland Stamp (to be presented at next meeting)
?Sheldon Pennoyer, a former board member, asked a question, and requested to comment at the appropriate time. Morris asked if it would behoove the Board to move discussion to another night regarding the annexed 22 acre lot so paperwork could be corrected, and if it is going to be treated as a back lot, it must follow the guidelines as a back lot. The problem is that the plat does not propose the lot as a back lot, and some requirements have not been met; information of the receiving and other abutters must be included. Cronin clarified the issue, and Chairman Carrara read Ogilvie’s comments from her letter, echoing the need for abutters’ information. The Board questioned whether or not to vote on acceptance tonight. Pennoyer proposed
that the applicants be commended for their honesty about their future interests in subdividing the 16 acre lot. He then compared this scenario to a past one (A&T Forest Products) when he was on the Board. Chairman Carrara suggested that the final vote to accept the plan be at a future meeting. Cronin asked if the Board would grant a conditional acceptance. The issue is if the lot is really going to be a back lot or a stand-alone lot. The potential recipients of the annexed land spoke on their behalf by saying that they are primarily interested in the conservation of the lot. Steere asked for the applicant to agree to a 30 day extension to postpone the Boards vote on acceptance. Chairman Carrara asked the applicant for a written waiver for a thirty day extension. O’Hara wrote the extension and Chairman Carrara accepted it. The follow-up meeting to conclude this plan is scheduled for January 8th, 2007.
?Next regular meeting scheduled for December 18th, 2006.
Hall Way Issue
?Email from Renee Fish from DOT regarding Hall Way basically says that if a vehicle has to cross the yellow line to enter the driveway it creates a safety hazard. The Board discussed the email content, and concluded that the driveway is a town issue, not a state issue. Chairman Carrara asked if emergency vehicles could make the turn safely. Borden brought the issue back to the original complaint, from Troy Wright, that vehicles making the turn were driving off the apron and six-wheel trucks have to back in.
?Some debate was made on the Boards authority to correct the problem. O’Connell read aloud a law regarding the jurisdiction of the Board to fix Hall Way. The real point is that the builder did not build according to the plan, not the safety issue. Hopkins suggested that the owners of the co-driveway (Hall Way) should share the cost of the upgrade. Steere: Two main issues: 1) did the driveway meet the plan? NO. 2) is there a problem in the future from the existing set-up? UNCLEAR. Chairman Carrara read that landowners must be held responsible for driveway connections and should fix any problem where the connection compromises the highway. He then went on to ask if the Board should really pursue every problem or
other development that did not meet original plans. Morris moved to require the four owners of the lots serviced by the common drive known as Hall Way to bring the driveway into compliance with the approved subdivision named “Subdivision Plan of Land Prepared for Brian Hall” by June 1st, 2007; seconded by Steere. Chairman Carrara called for a vote at 9:17, all were in favor of adopting the motion. Chairman Carrara will write the letter to the owners and Hopkins will follow up to ensure compliance.
?Steere mentioned to Hopkins (Code Enforcement Officer) that the clearing in County Road (as discussed in 11/27/06 minutes) now has stone rip-rap across ditch into lot. Hopkins will look into this.
Carol Irving Discussing Open Space
The Conservation Commission has formed an Open Space Committee with four members. The intention is to operate as other similar committees do, to provide a voice for Open Space at the table, seeking a balance between development and Open Space. They have had only one official meeting thus far. In addition, they are putting forth a warrant article to allocate town funds to go toward Open Space. They plan on conducting an Open Space Inventory and then rating the parcels based on Natural Resource Value. What they propose for town meeting is an adjustment to the Land Use Change Tax. Currently the Conservation fund gets 100% of the revenues with a $5,000 cap per year. The current funds are insufficient to make a real difference given
current land prices. They propose to put all LUCT revenues toward the conservation fund. Steere mentioned his Build Out Analysis as it may assist in their effort to determine prime parcels. Steere wondered about their ideas about trails. They responded that they know about the trails association. Morris asked if they had targeted any land yet. They responded that they had some in mind, but they are going before the selectmen Wednesday night with a specific list. The Open Space Inventory will be all volunteer, based on the existing Natural Resource Inventory. Chairman Carrara pointed out that asking for all LUCT funds to go to the Conservation Fund is a large request. Chairman Carrara asked if they had any numbers to compare acres put into conservation versus acres developed. He thought that would be an interesting statistic. Rainier asked if they had thought of a Bond. They had, but the Warrant Article is the
first step. O’Connell asked if they had thought about matching grants. They said yes, and LCHIP is an option in the future. The speakers left at 9:43.
Hopkins asked how the town would pay for any of this. Had they looked at the Master Plan. He suggested that the Master Plan should answer many of their questions about what areas are to be focused on for conservation.
Morris moved to adjourn at 9:52, seconded by Steere.
Meeting adjourned at 9:52pm.
| 
