Greenfield Planning Board
February 5, 2007
Minutes by Joe Trudeau
Members Present: Chairman Carrara, Halper, Borden, Morris, Rainier, O’Connell, and alternate member Steere sitting in for Fletcher
Meeting opened at 7:08
Minutes were read aloud by Halper. Borden moved to accept the minutes with the following changes:
1) Section 4.F.C shall be changed to 4.F.1.C on page 17 of proposed amendments
All members were in favor of accepting the minutes as changed. Steere abstained since he was absent from the last meeting.
Mail
1) pay stub for Joe Trudeau
2) Building permits from CEO Hopkins
3) State approval for Mathewson subdivision
Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinances and other business
?O’Connell questioned keeping ‘Contiguous Upland’ in the definitions because it was struck out of the all the district ordinances. He also noticed that in General Residence on page 9 the new section 5 had a section struck out but since it has never been law it can just be removed. Page 4 line 24 should be struck out also. Halper suggested that all substantive changes from the last meeting should be reviewed at this meeting but it is unnecessary to go through the whole document again. Chairman Carrara reminded the Board that the public hearing was advertised to begin at 7:30, though there was uncertainty about if it was advertised at 8. He checked to see at what time it was advertised but that was not determined. A citizen pointed out
that at the last hearing there was discrepancies in the advertised time.
?Chairman Carrara decided to start the meeting at 8 pm because the public may have expected it to start then.
?A citizen spoke up mentioning that several Board members who were running for Board seats in the upcoming election did not specify on a certain detail and that the secretary was still in her office and would speak with them at this time. Said Board members complied and left the table to deal with those issues.
?Halper asked the Board how the amendments shall be presented at town meeting. O’Connell suggested that at least on the Open Space Ordinance there should be line-by-line votes since there are so many changes. Chairman Carrara asked what exactly needed to be presented for the ballot. Steere and Rainier responded that he must give the change and the context the change is in, along with where the change is in the ordinances.
Public Hearing
?Chairman Carrara called the Hearing to attention at 8:00 pm. He asked citizens to sign in; asked if anybody felt they should be disqualified; reminded of the no smoking rules; pointed out the fire exits; and explained that the Board will review the recent substantive changes to the Proposed Amendments and not all changes since most were discussed at the previous Hearing.
? These are the following changes:
1) Page 3 line 16: ‘Contiguous Upland’ will be removed.
2) Page 4 lines 24-25: Line will be struck out
3) Page 9 line 26-27: The first ‘C’ will be removed
?Jarvis Adams charged that the Board skipped a change regarding maximum allowable people in a dwelling unit. The Board responded that this hearing is only reviewing changes made since the last Hearing.
4) Page 14 lines 10-25: no discussion
?A citizen asked what the difference is between page 14 lines 22-25 and page 34 lines 15-17. She wondered why the same thing was stated in two places. The Board agreed that removing item 4 on page 14 would be beneficial.
?Jarvis Adams pointed out the change on driveway widths should be discussed. He also provided feedback that many folks felt like they were not heard at the first Hearing. His point was that the Board needs to get through things like OSD. Halper responded that if the public had issue with the Proposed Amendments they should be at this Hearing. Morris responded that the public was indeed heard and this is evident in the most recent version of the Proposed Amendments, which is much different than the previous version. Jarvis Adams replied “point well taken”.
5) Page 16 lines 29-41: Section IV.E struck out.
6) Page 17 lines 7-8: Struck out date was not struck out in the last version
7) Page 38 line 21: Add statement that the overall density would be no greater than the underlying district. Chairman Carrara was uncertain if every district had the lot size and dwelling units described in sufficient detail to permit the calculation required by this change. The Board reviewed the Ordinances and found that the necessary language existed except for rural-agricultural.
?Citizen Jennings commented that his original point at a previous Hearing that a “2 acre per dwelling unit” rule would simplify things. Borden responded that the nature of the Rural/Agricultural district was to maintain rural living.
8) Page 42 line 20 (# 7) is very similar to page 38 line 21. Chairman Carrara stated he didn’t think there was enough detail in the Rural/Agricultural ordinances to dictate the “minimum permissible acreage per dwelling unit”.
?Jarvis Adams pointed out that the Board cannot make substantive changes at this point because that would necessitate another Hearing. Chairman Carrara looked up that point and confirmed that Jarvis was probably right. The Board and the public debated the Boards right/ability to add a new change to the OSD Amendments. Steve Seigars and another citizen voiced in favor of Jarvis Adams’ point.
?Bob Jennings pointed out that he felt that on page 7 lines 47-49 “attached” should be placed before ‘dwelling unit’. The Board showed that is not an issue because the definition of ‘dwelling unit’ covers it.
?Halper suggested the issue be resolved at a later date. Since each item could vote up or down, there are too many uncertainties. The Board should wait to see which way things go and pursue more details in six months.
?Citizen Jarvis stated that aggressive action by the Board to put stricter limits on development has the unintended consequence of pushing development through faster. He felt that the economy has slowed development already. Chairman Carrara responded that he is personally less concerned about a house or two or three, but he and presumably many people are very concerned about the big 40 or 50 house developments. If the Board cannot accurately define minimum lot size a big developer and their lawyers will find the loopholes and make decisions on their own. Halper reminded the Board and public that the Board has final say on OSD approval.
?A citizen asked about what ‘premature’ means on page 37 line 33. Chairman Carrara provided a “squishy” answer that it is a development that far exceeds the regional planning trends and local infrastructure. He provided an example from Albuquerque, NM where huge developments preceded school and other infrastructure growth.
?Steve Seigars asked if lots get tagged with a label of industrial or residential. Chairman Carrara said that what is recorded on the plat is law.
Chairman Carrara closed the Public Hearing at 9:13 pm.
Halper moved to submit the entire Proposed Changes to Zoning Ordinances dated 1/30/07 with the changes made tonight as warrant articles at the upcoming town meeting. There was no discussion. All members were in favor of the motion.
Rainier moved to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:16 pm.
| 
