Greenfield Planning Board
Monday August 27, 2007
Minutes recorded by Joe Trudeau
Members Present: Chairman Carrara, Halper, Morris, Fletcher, Borden, and Alternate Member Steere sitting in for O’Connell.
Carrara called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Steere read aloud the August 13, 2007 meeting minutes. O’Connell arrived at 7:18 and Steere removed himself from the meeting. Adams arrived at 7:34.
Borden moved to accept the minutes as read; seconded by Morris; all members voted in favor.
Mail:
Subdivision application for McAllister Property on Miner Road prepared by T.F. Moran Incorporated of Keene. The application is formally submitted to the Board.
Building permits from Peter Hopkins
MEMO from administrative assistant regarding budget
Planning Board budget to date for 2007
Newsletter from N.H. Department of Environmental Services
Open Space Development Subdivision application for Gene and Gwynne Mitchell on Sawmill Road prepared by Meridian Land Services. The application is formally submitted to the Board.
CIP Presentation by Halper
Halper presented spreadsheets that describe the status of the CIP process and important upcoming dates. O’Connell volunteered to research RSA’s that are pertinent to the CIP. Halper asked what members felt about posting CIP data, albeit preliminary, to the town website. Last years CIP information is online, so some members felt there’s no need to post this years numbers and text. Mitchell and Fletcher were in support of posting progress in the hope of attracting public involvement to the process.
Carrara presented a spreadsheet that summarizes the town budget from 1998 through 2012 which includes capital and operating expenses, revenue, spending commitments, tax burden, department details and other financial details.
Continuation of major subdivision application for Gene Mitchell on Sawmill Road
The Board has accepted the major subdivision application. The 190 acre lot is being divided into two roughly equal lots. One lot is Mitchell’s current residence and the other is a forthcoming Open Space Development. Carrara read aloud the notes from the last discussion of the subdivision. The public was asked to sign in. Said public had no comments or questions regarding the subdivision so Carrara closed the public hearing at 7:40. Nate Chamberlain from Meridian Land Services was present representing Mitchell. Mitchell, an alternate member of the Board, was present as a resident and land owner only.
Carrara went through a checklist of deficiencies generated at the last discussion of the subdivision. All deficiencies were corrected. The Board not having any more questions or concerns, moved into a Deliberative Session. O’Connell questioned whether proposed lot R17-2, the forthcoming Open Space Development, has been preliminarily investigated to determine if it is suitable for an Open Space Development. Morris responded that as long as there is access and the lot is conforming then the process can advance at this point. Halper moved to approve the subdivision plan as presented and amended by Gene and Gwynne Mitchell on Sawmill Road. The motion was seconded and the Board unanimously approved the subdivision. Mr. Chamberlain brought 3 copies
and the Board needs 6 so he will need to bring in 3 more. Also, the surveyor needs to sign at the top of the plat which can be done when Mr. Chamberlain makes 3 more copies. Mr. Chamberlain will bring in the necessary copies on September 10, 2007. The Board set the date of September 24, 2007 for discussing the forthcoming Open Space Development.
Carrara read aloud a letter from Carol Ogilvie dated July 8, 2007 regarding the 28 house subdivision. Mr. Chamberlain does not have a copy of the letter so Carrara made a copy for him. Ogilvie commented that the storm water management plan needs to be reviewed by a more qualified expert. Chamberlain was concerned that this additional review would further delay the development process. The Board acknowledged that point and suggested that Chamberlain contact Ogilvie. Adams added that he had spoken with Peter Hopkins about constructing a fire pond. Chamberlain and Mitchell responded that they will pursue the issue further if it is required.
CIP Discussion, continued
Halper continued with presentation of the CIP spreadsheets. He discussed the costs of updating the existing town office building versus building a new one. Mitchell joined the Board in discussion as his agenda item had closed.
Fletcher discussed his review of the Master Plan. The Board discussed the required revision of the Master Plan which he thought needs to be done every 5 years. The existing plan was completed in 2003. If the plan is not updated in time it may need to be completely redone.
Morris discussed options for placement of the town offices. The town has 3 buildings down town. He plans on evaluating the existing buildings for their function. Mitchell said that the existing office building could be sold to a business and the town could build a new building that meets all applicable codes. He added that as towns grow the office may outgrow the character of the downtown and moving it out to another location is better soon that later.
Adams added that commercial and industrial land is a revenue benefit to the town. O’Connell replied that when industrial lots or buildings are not occupied then the benefits dissipate. Mitchell feels that it is important to add some commercial space to town. The Board agreed that on September 10, 2007 they will discuss the Master Plan update process.
Carrara stated that he thought there should be a committee or some group that investigates the costs of capital improvements and expenses since the numbers used in the CIP are either guesses, estimations, or may be subject to bias. Adams added that he would like to see an independent analysis of options for recycling. The Board agreed that there is a need for facts regarding all aspects of budgeting to help provide unbiased and independent decision making. Carrara read a section from the NH planning book stating that a Master Plan must be revised every 5-10 years and voters do not need to vote on it (RSA 674:3).
Driveways
Discussion of RSA 236:13. Carrara read a section of the RSA. O’Connell remarked that the Fire Department is concerned about some driveways in town being difficult to pass for some emergency vehicles. O’Connell asked the Board what regulations should be in place regarding driveway passage by emergency vehicles. Does the RSA speak to the interface or the entire driveway? Carrara asked the Board if it is the Boards responsibility to make driveways accessible to emergency vehicles. Board members gave opinions supporting all sides of the issue.
Carrara asked if the Driveway Regulations should be removed from Subdivision Regulations. The Board generally agreed that the Driveway Regulations should be independent. Driveway Regulation Section 5-L. Carrara asked if either Peter Hopkins (CEO) or Duffy (Director of DPW) should be responsible for making decisions and signing off on certain safety aspects of driveways at inspection time. Mitchell and others agreed that it would be best for an engineer to certify driveway grades, drainage, and shape, and in subdivisions the cost would be covered by the developer. O’Connell asked who would pay for single driveways. Utility and additional driveways should also be regulated. All interfaces should be regulated. The Board agreed that only the
interface area should be subject to regulations, and not the whole driveway. The Board discussed a 30’ interface width that narrows to 20’ wide 20’ back. The Board generally agreed that 30’ was too wide. O’Connell pointed out that a regulation could make an existing driveway illegal if it is deemed “unsafe”. Carrara moved to adopt the language “That in accordance with RSA Chapter 236:13, Driveways and Other Access to the Public Way, the Planning Board has delegated administrative duties, including the actual issuance of driveway permits, to the Code Enforcement Officer and the Director of DPW. These two agents retain continuing jurisdiction over the adequacy and safety of every existing driveway entrance, exit, and approach to a highway. In the event that these two agents disagree, the Planning Board will be the final arbitrator.” Morris seconded the motion; the Board voted unanimously
in favor of accepting the motion.
Junkyards
On behalf of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Adams briefly discussed setting up zoning for junkyards because some people in town have junkyards that are not permitted. In order for people to get permits there first needs to be a zoning ordinance. Carrara read from RSA 675:3, even though the Select Board may propose an ordinance, the Planning Board is still required to hold a public hearing, etc.
Morris moved to adjourn; seconded by Borden; unanimously voted in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:09pm.
| 
