Greenfield Planning Board
January 22, 2007
Minutes by Joe Trudeau
Members Present: Chairman Carrara, Halper, Borden, Morris, Rainier, O’Connell, and alternate member Steere.
Meeting opened at 7:10
?Chairman Carrara designated alternate member Steere to act in absent member Fletcher’s place.
?Steven Seigars, pursuant to RSA 91-A:4 II+V, I, requested any notes from the last meeting because he claimed the minutes do not reflect many questions asked by members of the public, or responses from the Board. Chairman Carrara asked Mr. Trudeau to describe his process for taking minutes, which he did. Mr. Seigars suggested that Mr. Trudeau save unedited notes as taken prior to editing for clarity and their forwarding to the Chairman so the public can review them.
?Chairman Carrara decided to review the minutes from the last meeting at the end of the meeting so the Board could get down to business as there was much to discuss regarding the Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinances.
?Chairman Carrara proposed to the Board that a future public hearing could be held regarding FEMA zoning changes. He then pointed out to a member of the public who was video recording that usually people ask for permission to record. The public then asked and was granted permission. He then identified himself as Patrick Seigars.
?Chairman Carrara reminded members Borden, O’Connell, and Morris that their terms are nearing their end and they may want to run again.
Mail
1) Written input from Bob Jennings.
2) Written request from Steven Seigars, pursuant to RSA 91-A:4 II+V, I, requesting any notes from the last meeting.
3) BOS minutes form January 4 and 11, 2007.
4) Information on multifamily dwelling units from Union Leader, Jan. 19, 2007.
5) Two letters from attorney John Cronin: 2 applications to the ZBA for Pratt and Mangini.
6) Photocopy of a document about the Benefits of Wetland Buffers.
7) Notice of decision from ZBA approving appeal submitted by Claire Belmore Heirs.
8) Survey from Office of Energy and Planning about wireless facilities.
9) Letter regarding floodplain insurance from FEMA.
?Chairman Carrara asked the public to withhold comment while the Board discussed Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinances, and he added that if there are any substantial changes the Board will schedule another public hearing. He then added that should any members of the public wish to run for a Planning Board seat they have the chance as 3 seats are opening soon. Sign-up starts Wednesday and should run about a week.
Discussion of Changes to Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinances
Definitions:
?Minor changes were discussed in the definitions of Industry and Housing. Rainier pointed out that the definition of Conservation Lot is in line with a state statute.
?O’Connell suggested that Contiguous Upland Acres be taken out from individual District Ordinances and be moved to General Provisions on page 15. The reason would be to allow the public to vote on that definition separate from other definitions. Halper suggested that it should be left where it is, with other definitions. Steere explained that O’Connell’s intent was to make voting easier for the public.
General Residence District:
?Chairman Carrara read aloud the proposed change. He suggested that there should be flexibility enough to give landowners options in homebuilding.
Regarding changes in dwelling unit numbers: The current law is 1 acre needed for each dwelling unit (duplex needs 2 acres, triplex needs 3, etc…) up to 4 dwelling units. The proposed change is to change to 2 dwelling units allowed and each needs 1.5 acres. Steere brought up that some towns put more restrictive ordinances in place but permit special exceptions to build more units. The Board agreed to not propose the change to a 2 unit maximum. Steere suggested that the change to a 1.5 acre per unit should be left as is so the public can vote on it. The Board agreed.
Regarding single ownership: Halper felt bothered by the single ownership clause, and the Chairman agreed. Halper suggested striking the line about single ownership.
Other points: Borden called the State and checked to see if community wells were required. The State requires them when there are 25 units in a building. Some discussion was had on perk testing on lots over 5 acres, but that would be a change to subdivision regulations.
Rural Agricultural District:
?Regarding accessory dwelling units and allowable inhabitants: The proposed change from “4 families allowed in a building” to 1 family, except with special exception for one accessory dwelling unit that is no more than 25% of the main home, and houses no more than 2 people. The change essentially says that 4 family homes can be allowed in General Residence but no longer in Rural Agricultural. Board members agreed that limiting the number of inhabitants to two is hard to enforce and not the towns business, unless there are issues of safety or health; it was agreed upon that it is to be struck out. (That limit was also in the Village District Ordinances, which O’Connell proposed striking out. It was struck out).
Morris noted that by striking the changes the density in Rural Agricultural would be higher than General Residence. The Board agreed that the Rural Agricultural zone should have lower density than General Residence. Morris said that the Proposed Change brings the ordinance in line with the definition of Rural Agricultural Zone. Chairman Carrara suggested that as we as a society move away from an agrarian way of life and towards a professional technological society, how is Rural Agricultural relevant? The Board agreed to let the town vote on it and move on.
Industrial Overlay District:
?The theory behind the change is that once a lot is subdivided, the lots of the subdivision cannot be used for industrial purposes. The Board agreed to leave the change in for voters to vote on.
Wetlands Conservation District:
?Regarding prohibited uses: (Proposed Amendments in Bold type)
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.
?Chairman Carrara voiced that most zoning is changed if there is a problem. There has been no problem with wetlands so he sees no reason to change the current ordinances.
(Rainier suggested that by waiting another week or two to work more on these changes information from Marilyn about wetlands protection could be brought together that could help inform the discussion. Said research was done with the intent of informing this discussion.)
B. No new septic system or leach field shall be located within 100 feet to the high water mark of surface waters or wetlands.
?Borden said that years ago Greenfield changed to 125 feet but later rescinded to 75 feet.
He referenced the State publication “Subdivision and Individual Sewage Disposal System Design Rules”.
C. No dredging, filling, draining, or otherwise altering the surface configuration of surface waters, wetlands, or lands within the WCD shall be permitted unless a Special Exception is granted by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Section 8 of this Ordinance.
?No discussion
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 on a 25 year storm event.
?Steere thought that including this change would support A.
E. No establishment or expansion 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.
?No Discussion
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.
?The Chairman suggested that there needed to be a definition of Bulk Storage. Steere suggested that 250 gallons would be a reasonable amount. Borden mentioned that 1 gallon of gas will taint 1,000,000 gallons of water to the point that you can taste the gas.
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.
?A concern from the public hearing was about plowing. Morris recalled the discussion several meetings ago that this was intended to prevent the transport of snow from one area to a wetland area.
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 lawns or areas with grass.
?Halper suggested that because of the uncertainty and problems inherent to these proposed prohibitions, the changes should be tabled until more research and discussion occurred that would better support the changes. Therefore, no changes will be proposed to this ordinance.
?Regarding Special Provisions to Wetlands Conservation District:
?Debate ensued over the use of the word “prior” in the clause about “prior existing nonconforming use.” Steere argued that prior is an important word and must be used if the sentence is to mean anything. The Board agreed.
?Borden had issue with the change of contiguous upland area potentially affecting an otherwise lovely lot with a babbling brook to fall asleep to. Steere felt there was a need for an ordinance to address making buildable lots that weren’t bizarre shapes. He also pointed out some lots that were subdivided and would not meet this proposed ordinance. Halper suggested that the change is a good idea but there is no good way to phrase the ordinance. Steere felt the issue should be discussed later in greater detail. The Board agreed to not include this change.
Open Space Development
?O’Connell suggested that the OSD Ordinance should be voted on either to accept the whole set of changes or not accept them and keep it the way it is; Steere agreed. Halper added that a 3rd option of voting to abolish the OSD Ordinance exists. Some members of the Board thought you could not remove the OSD Ordinance. Steere feels that the new OSD Ordinances (the proposed) is far superior to the existing ordinance, covering many issues that have surfaced over the years.
?Regarding number of dwelling units per building: “maximum” added to the sentence. Morris pointed out that if the Rural Agricultural zoning changes don’t pass then a problem exists that the maximum allowable units in RA exceeds that in General Residence. Chairman Carrara felt that setting guidelines based on lots is unsatisfactory and the ordinance should be based on the maximum number of dwelling units to give flexibility to the developer.
?The Board will meet again at 7 pm Tuesday, January 30th to go over the changes again before the next public hearing. Discussion ended on the Proposed Amendments at 9:58 pm.
Review of minutes from Public Hearing of 1-15-07
Halper read aloud the minutes from the last meeting, 1-15-07. Halper moved to accept the minutes as amended, 4 voted ay (Borden, Rainier, Halper, Morris), 2 abstained (Steere, O’Connell), motion passed and they were accepted with the following changes at 10:30 pm.
1) page 1 line 25, change meeting to “public hearing”
2) page 3 line 135, same as above
3) page 1 line 40, change “lot” to “building” so it reads “creating a building with no access would be problematic.”
4) page 2 lines 69-71, Remove the sentence beginning with “After” and ending with “Amendments”, and replace it with “A member of the public asked for a reason for the change. The Board declined to answer.”
5) page 3 lines 95-96, Add that “The Board declined to answer.”
6) Within in the Prohibited Uses of the Wetlands Conservation District: The public asked for definitions of “Bulk,” “Fertilizer,” “low phosphate fertilizer” and “slow release fertilizer”. In response to Item 7, a member of the public asked how he could plow snow within the 250’ buffer around a wetland. Borden mentioned that a 250’ buffer for fertilizer was a typo. The Board declined to answer these questions. The research material procured by Fletcher was not present at the Hearing.
7) page 3 line 97, more than one member of the public commented on erosion of property rights.
Carrara moved to include in the minutes the direction of each Board members vote on motions. All voted ay. Motion accepted at 10:31 pm.
Other Business
?Verizon Port-o-potty: Verizon has installed a port-o-potty outside their building. They came before the Board for a site plan review and said there would be no port-o-potty. Chairman Carrara moved to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen regarding Verizon’s port-o-potty. All in favor, motion passed unanimously at 10:36 pm. Rainier also mentioned that Delay’s Stores’ new parking lot goes against the Site Plan Review.
?Mangini Coach Road subdivision: O’Connell disqualified himself from this portion of the meeting. Mangini went before the ZBA to appeal for a special exception on Coach Road to subdivide a 33 acre lot into a 22 acre lot and an 11 acre lot. The Board reviewed the survey plans and discussed the proposed driveway and house sites. The plans do not have a wetland stamp. Morris moved to recommend to the ZBA that they approve this special exception when the information provided has been confirmed by a wetland scientist. Seconded by Steere. All in favor, passed unanimously at 10:52pm.
?Pratt subdivision on New Boston Road: O’Connell disqualified himself from this portion of the meeting. The Board reviewed the plans of the Pratt subdivision on New Boston and Dunklee Roads and discussed a wetlands crossing. Morris moved that the Board recommend to the ZBA that they grant the special exception to cross the wetland buffer once the information provided has been confirmed by a wetland scientist. Seconded by Steere. All in favor, passed unanimously at 11:03 pm.
?FEMA flood insurance: O’Connell motioned to adopt the changes as recommended by FEMA and OSP and put them on file. All in favor, passed unanimously at 11:10 pm.
Halper motioned to adjourn, seconded, meeting closed at 11:11 pm.
| 
