Greenfield Planning Board
Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinances
January 15, 2007
Members Present: Chairman Carrara, Halper, Borden, Rainier, and O’Connell.
Meeting opened at 7:33
Chairman Carrara read aloud the minutes from the last meeting, 1-8-07. Halper moved to accept the minutes as read and they were accepted with no changes at 7:39 pm.
Update from CEO Peter Hopkins
?CEO Hopkins notified the Board that he received the Boards request to withhold any building permits to York River, LLC, for a development on Old Bennington Road. Hopkins said that the State approved the septic system and he has no reason to not grant the permit; in effect the Board has no standing to tell Mr. Hopkins what decisions to make regarding permit issuance. If the Board should further call to deny the permit, the Board should work with the ZBA. O’Connell informed Mr. Hopkins that the request to deny the permit was based not on issues of ordinance compliance, but on statements made to the Board by the developer. Hopkins replied that he reviewed the minutes from the past meeting and they revealed no evidence of any agreements between the
developer and the Board regarding anything that may allow the Board to deny a permit.
Public Hearing
?Chairman Carrara brought the meeting to attention at 7:48 pm by informing the public on the rules and regulations of the hearing.
?A member of the public asked if the Proposed Amendments were engineered by the Planning Board or by a combination between the Conservation Commission and the Board. Chairman Carrara responded that to the best of his knowledge the proposed changes are the explicit work of the Board.
?Chairman Carrara asked the Board how to break up the Proposed Amendments into separate articles for town meeting. O’Connell thought that each section should be its own article.
?Chairman Carrara reviewed the Proposed Amendments:
1) Definitions: Frontage, Industry, Housing, Conservation Lot, Contiguous Upland
Public Response:
-A member of the public voiced their feeling that within the definition of Conservation Lot, “building” should be reworded to “dwelling” so that a land owner could erect a gazebo or other utility building on said lot. O’Connell raised concern that creating a lot with no access would be problematic.
2) Zoning Districts:
a) Minimum Area for Conforming Lot to be based on 1.5 acre contiguous upland
Public Response
-Members of the public had issue with basing minimum area on “contiguous upland”
-Members of the public asked why change the ordinance? This move would make many lots unbuildable, and much of Greenfield is wet, so why further restrict taxpayer freedoms? Another member of the public mentioned that State and Federal government agencies have regulations in place already regarding wetlands and local governments should not attempt to trump higher level decision making by professional scientists. O’Connell responded that the State should not always be trusted to make the best decisions. After being asked what environmental protections were afforded by this amendment, Chairman Carrara responded that this change would hopefully prevent landowners from crossing wetlands just to access disparate pieces of upland.
*After some concern about the timely posting of this hearing, Chairman Carrara assured the public that the Proposed Amendments were electronically delivered to the appropriate parties on time, thus making this hearing official and that all necessary steps were taken.
b) General Residence District: Change from 4 dwelling units in 1 building on 2 acres to 2 dwelling units in 1 building on 3 acres and in single ownership
Public Response
-CEO Hopkins argued that this change wipes out the potential for affordable housing in Greenfield, and that trends in the industry have moved towards higher density housing such as condexes because of the high costs of land and housing.
-Members of the public voiced concern about property rights, that this change would result in fewer students in ConVal, and that this change seems “anti-growth.” One member of the public (Bob Jennings) suggested that a single home be on 2 acres, a duplex on 4, a 4-plex on 16 (he probably meant 8), etc….After asking for some rational behind the change and receiving no convincing justification, a member of the public pointed out that the Board thus far has presented no opinions to support the Proposed Amendments.
-Chairman Carrara asked the public if the suggestion from Bob Jennings is a fair way to regulate development. CEO Hopkins supported the idea; however, the general consensus of the public was that the existing ordinances are satisfactory.
c) Rural Agricultural: change from 4 dwelling units on a lot to 1
Public Response
-One member felt that the character of the Rural/Agricultural Zone is not compromised by duplexes when mobile homes, tarps on roofs, and metal structures are allowed and currently in place.
-Another member suggested that limiting the number of people/families/dwelling units on a lot goes against the tradition of old, large farmhouses housing multiple families or extended families.
-CEO Hopkins pointed out that he cannot enforce some points in the Proposed Amendment and they should be removed.
-A member stated that no member of the public should have to come before the Board for a special exception to allow people to live in an accessory dwelling unit on their property.
3) Wetland Conservation Area Prohibited Uses: increasing buffers to 50 feet for some wetlands, salt storage, hazmat, increased flow volume, auto junkyards, storage tanks, fertilizer, etc…
Public Response
-Why increase to 50 feet?! Why pay taxes on land that can no longer be used?
-One member asked if there are any examples of where the 25’ buffer has been insufficient.
-One member was frustrated that Private Property Rights are being eroded.
-CEO Hopkins pointed out that Greenfield has the least wetlands of the 4 towns he works in (Peterborough, Bennington, and Hancock). All those towns are actively debating the buffer issue.
-250’ for bulk storage tanks is excessive because of the standards that tanks are held to.
-Fertilizer regulations as well as other proposed regulations would put one farmer, in his opinion, out of business.
-One member suggested that beavers’ effects on wetlands are an issue that should be addressed by the Board.
4) Special Provisions
Public Response
-The public was concerned that the Board was anti-growth.
5) Open Space Development (OSD)
a) Chairman Carrara explained the intent of the OSD language, the removal of bonus density, standards of approval, definitions pertaining to OSD, and other points.
Public Response
-a member of the public argued that subtracting the wetland buffer from the “net developable area” is not consistent with their inclusion in a regular lots’ area. Chairman Carrara explained that it is probably not a big issue, unless you increase the buffer to 50 feet, but that the inconsistency should be discussed by the Board.
-another member suggested that the Board look at what other towns have done on OSD
-the road width set at 60 feet seemed like a lot to some members. One suggested bringing it down to 40 feet.
-the sentence regarding the impact of a development on town services seems vague and some members of the public were uncomfortable with fiduciary decisions being made by the Board when it should be up to the town as a whole.
-a member suggested that more dwelling units per building on an OSD lot would leave more land undeveloped
-a member asked if the Board was against condominiums; Chairman Carrara explained that the Board removed the term because it was not defined.
Other Points from the Public
-a member reiterated his feeling that duplexes should be allowed in the Rural Agricultural zone. The comment was followed by a rebuttal that duplexes are not consistent with the towns’ rural character and to see a duplex in that zone would be a negative affect on that rural character, whatever “rural character” means.
Meeting closed at 11:25pm
| 
