Planning Board
Meeting Minutes – May 24, 2010
Minutes recorded by Sharon Rossi
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall, JFletcher, KO’Connell, and JAdams
Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm Audience members: Karen Day - ConCom Member, Carol Irwin - ConCom Chair, Lisa Murphy, SWRPC. KO’Connell arrived at 7:05 pm.
LMurphy, SWRPC member, is attending to present the proposed Town of Greenfield Groundwater Protection Ordinance she has been working on with BMarshall.
LMurphy stated the intent of the grant is to seek out towns that are looking to do water quality related ordinances. LMurphy also explained that the State of NH has a book which she helped to edit, thus she is very familiar with the drafting of this type of ordinance. She has 17 years experience working with this type of legislation as well as instituting regulations concerning water protection. She modeled the ordinance from guidelines that the DES has established. Many definitions are from the guidelines established by the DES. The Planning Board may change any definition, but the ones that she used in the draft are all tried and true with the State of NH.
BMarshall asked, “Has this ordinance been passed by a lawyer?” LMurphy responded, “Yes, usually the LGC looks at these models.” LMurphy handed out colored maps showing the town’s aquifers. BMarshall asked, “For this ordinance, are all the sage colored areas on the map true aquifers? LMurphy replied, “Yes, based on information from the State of NH.
Carol Irwin, ConCom Chair, asked, “If the boundaries shown on the map are surveyed and true?” LMurphy responded, “The map is not a precise measurement and boundaries are not exact.”
MSteere asked, “Can we add anything to the ordinance that is specific to our town?” LMurphy responded, “Yes.” LMurphy reviewed the Permitted Uses in the ordinance. Her comment to the Planning Board is that most towns are grandfathering people to do what they were doing when the ordinance was implemented. By doing this, the ordinance has become a solid workable regulation. Another way is to go with more prohibited use, such as taking away some of uses only if you had some way to check for the actual removal. The 8 prohibited uses listed in the ordinance are fairly common. MSteere asked if you could say on the ordinance “may be allowed.” LMurphy responded “yes”.
LMurphy mentioned that defining regulated uses provides extra protection. MBorden pointed out that the state considers asphalt as an impervious surface near shorelines and yet this proposed ordinance does not consider asphalt impervious. LMurphy responded that this regulation is not intended to impede the residential districts and that agricultural zones are a non-regulated area.
MSteere said the Planning Board could put in an exception for residential, but businesses would have to be regulated by DES’s regulations. GMorris commented that the Board doesn’t want to implement an ordinance that we can’t enforce. LMurphy commented, “If more prohibitive uses are listed in the ordinance then, a person should be trained to enforce the ordinance and that DES will gladly help to train the person.” MSteere asked, “Is there a number and name with the DES that we can contact, if we run into a problem?” LMurphy commented, “Yes, I’ll give you that person’s name and number.”
VIII. Regulated Uses - suggested changes to LMurphy:
C: change Building Inspector to Code Enforcement Officer and add “Planning Board or its designee”.
IX. Performance Standards - suggested changes to LMurphy:
#5. Insert “properly marked container”; to read “shall be stored in their original containers or properly marked container with proper labels…”
D. Add “determined and sealed”; to read “determined and sealed in accordance with WE 604.” It was asked that a definition of abandoned well to be inserted at the end of the sentence.
BMarshall wants a statement in the ordinance that enables the Planning Board to charge for costs for any study the may be required and he wants a model of an application and permit with a list of names & numbers of contacts if a catastrophic incident occurs for the Planning Board to have available.
KDay commented, “That the goal of tonight’s meeting is to protect our aquifers and ground waters with this ordinance. We may want to identify one of the three largest aquifers as our best and set it aside for the town’s use if in the future a town water system is needed. This ordinance is a good first step toward achieving this goal.” KDay also commented that there is a map that shows all the stratified areas which are located in the Master Plan.
X. Spills prevention, control & countermeasures plan (SPCC) suggested changes to LMurphy:
Fill in lines with Emergency Management Director or designee in both sets
XI: Pre-existing nonconforming uses
Due to the lateness of the hour the rest of the discussion on the ordinance was tabled.
The public portion of meeting closed at 9:07 pm.
GMorris said that he had gotten a call from Jason Logan who wanted to come in and discuss a home-based business. He called Jason and his father to come forward to meet the Board and he explained the PCC guidelines.
JLogan stated that the property is at 610 Sawmill Rd, Greenfield. He and his father would like to have a home-based business that would make apple wine. At the present time, they are making the wine as a hobby. JLogan informed the Board that the State requires town approval before a state license and federal license can be issued. GMorris stated that the site plan application must be filled out with a plat of the property showing the location of any new building being erected, abutters list and number of employees. JLogan said that the building would have a computerized setup, with stainless steel brewing tanks. There would be little waste and that he is working towards having green certification. He is working with the EPA to get that certification. The waste products would be yeast and
water which could be used in a compost pile. JLogan stated that there would be no sales from that location as they are mandated to sell their product to the State only. The State has 30 stores where their product would be sold. This would be a wholesale operation only. MSteere asked if the building would be used entirely for this brewing operation. Mr. Logan said, “Yes.” The building is not a specialty building and would sit on a concrete slab. It’s a manufactured design with a concrete floor with a glaze so that equipment can be moved. No sign will be posted for the business. JFletcher asked if there were any questions about setbacks in relation to the location of the building. Mr. Logan responded, “No, because the building would be approximately 80’ from any boundary also there would be no wetlands encroachment.
BMarshall read the ordinance about home based businesses in the general residence district: buying and selling home based product, cider is not being produced on this property, but being brought to the property and distilled. JAdams pointed out a previous allowed home-based business where the main product was brought to the location and then the home owner made his product. This would be the same situation.
JAdams also commented that a 30’ x 40’ building indicates that a possible full site plan review with the Board should take place. GMorris said that as the building is a manufactured structure they might want to have a picture of the proposed building with the Site Plan Application.
PCC closed at 9:34 pm
JFletcher read the meeting minutes for May 10, 2010.
· Line 4 remove MBorden
· Line 17 spell out O’Connell
· Line 24 insert “as a;” to read: “Planning Board didn’t want to have it as a Special Exception required for …”
· Line 32 insert “May 10, 2010” and “the;” to read as: GMorris spoke with the attorney (John Springer) today, May 10, 2010. The attorney is working on getting an application to the Planning Board.
· Line 72 change PCC to Site Plan
· Line 93 inserted, Code Enforcement Officer after PHopkins
· Line 94 added “a” and removed “s;” to read: we have a signage ordinance.
· Line 102 added Fire Chief after Loren White
· Line 126 spell out GMorris
· Line 128 added “the;” to read: “no application before the Board at this time.”
· Line 135 added per RSA at the end of the sentence
· Line 153 removed “the” and added “his;” to read: “It was noted by an audience member that surveyors have surveyed his property without his permission….”
MSteere motioned that the May 10, 2010 meeting minutes be accepted as amended. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote unanimous.
10:05 pm Mail received:
1. Invite to SWRPC annual commission meeting on 6/22/10
2. Guide for a membership for American Planning Association
3. Selectmen meeting minutes for 4/8/10 & 4/22/10
4. Building permit list dated 5/24/10
5. Town & City book from State of NH
6. Site Plan application from Bosen & Springer PLLC for 46 Zephyr Lake Rd, Greenfield
including, original & 2 copies of application for non-residential site plan review
Original & two copies of letter of authorization from landowners
Check made payable to the Town of Greenfield for the filing fee, no check seen
3 copies of the abutter’s list and 2 sets of mailing labels
3 copies of the project narrative & site plan requirements
3 copies of a certification from a licensed NH engineer regarding the fall zone
Original & 2 copies of the radio frequency report
2 large (2’x3’) and 5 small (11”x17”) sets of zoning plans (including tree survey)
7. A letter issuing an invitation to comment from Infinigy Engineering Survey, 11 Herbert
Dr, Latham, NY to comment on as related to the proposed project’s potential effects on historic properties.
The Board set the public hearing date for Site Plan Application for JSpringer from Bosen & Springer for June 14, 2010 at 7:45 pm.
KO’Connell presented the draft for an ordinance for vertical take-off and landing of aircraft in the Town of Greenfield.
MSteere motioned to present this proposed ordinance to the town at the next town meeting for inclusion with the current town ordinance. KO’Connell said that a public hearing for vertical take-off and landing of aircraft must be held before the Town can vote on it. This will commit us to a special Town Meeting if we want to implement it before March 2011. MBorden seconded the motion made by MSteere.
GMorris said, “That this town could be a risk at having its tranquility disturbed by vertical take-off and landing of aircraft. I’d like to see us be pro-active about this zoning ordinance.”
MSteere proposed that the Board pass this motion; contingent upon JAdams finding out what the cost of a special Town Meeting would be. If the cost is minimal, then the special Town Meeting would be feasible.
BMarshall queried, “How much of a risk are we talking if a resident lands a helicopter within the next 2 weeks? So if the Board doesn’t vote tonight, the town will lose the opportunity to institute the ordinance. The special Town Meeting would need to be held in early September.”
MSteere modified his motioned to hold a public hearing to present to the public the proposed ordinance on vertical take-off and landing aircraft. MBorden seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous.
The public hearing for the proposed addition to zoning regulations on vertical take-off and landing aircraft is scheduled for June 14, 2010 at 7:15 pm.
GMorris said that he looked at the before and after documents in the town warrant concerning the special exception for cell towers. JAdams recalled that the Board wanted a Special Exception in Village District and doesn’t recall any specific discussion about Special Exception for General Residence District.
GMorris read the cell tower ordinance as: Special Exception by the ZBA is required for all districts except Rural Agriculture and General Residence.
JFletcher motioned the meeting adjourn at 10:59 am, BMarshall seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous.
| 
