Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
February 28, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, BMarshall (sitting in for MBorden), KO’Connell
Mail Rec’d:
1. Recording of 2/14/11 deliberations of Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower
2. Selectmen’s meeting minutes for Feb 3 and 10, 2011
3. Budget Hearing minutes for 2/10/11
4. UNH Cooperative Extension brochure on Municipal Turf & Grounds Conference
5. NH Dept of Environmental Services, The Source, newsletter
6. Devine & Millimet, Municipal and Law Enforcement Litigation Newsletter, February 2011
7. February 2011 New Hampshire Town and City magazine
8. Current Town Officials & Committees 2011 listing
Minutes: 7:07 MSteere began reading the February 14, 2011 meeting minutes. GMorris resumed reading at line 92. The following changes were made:
Line 11: inserted a comma after the word January
Line 15: inserted a comma after the word January
Line 26: changed the closed quotation mark after the word ‘be’
Line 27: removed the comma after the word ‘this’
Line 35: inserted, “ATT reps presents, JSpringer, PMarchand, AJ DeSantis.
Line 45: changed ‘he’ to MHutchins
Line 67: inserted, KO’Connell refuted JAdams statement
Line 78: added closed quotation mark at the end of the sentence
Line 94: inserted ‘to’ and removed the ‘s’ on shows, to read as; “…the drive test to show the coverage.”
Line 102: removed ‘in’ from the sentence
Line 110: inserted a space between 136 and the word ’in’
Line 113: changed capital V to lower case v
Line 134: removed the word ‘on,’ changed ‘showing’ to ‘show,’ and changed ‘to’ to ‘of’
Line 140: added ‘in favor carried’
Line 165: added ‘/’ to date
Line 187: removed the word ‘are’
Line 192: added closed quotation mark at the end of the sentence
Line 194: changed ‘practical’ to ‘practically, and added the following sentence: “They would have to run cables to the tower and then back down to the generator.”
Line 201: added ‘in favor carried’
At 7:33 MSteere motioned to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Unanimous in favor carried.
7:30 Public Hearing for PSNH Tree Trimming on Scenic Roads
GMorris explained the rules of order for a public hearing. Dave Crane, arborist for PSNH, commented that PSNH is doing their annual tree trimming which is part of the company’s full scale maintenance project. All roads will be done including the scenic roads. He explained that he has marked the trees to be trimmed or removed. The contractor is Asplundh and they will contact each affected landowner before any work is done. They will take down the larger trees on a case by case basis. Asplundh’s crews will be coming in late March or early April. Some landowners may have already been contacted. GMorris stated the listing of poles and scenic roads to be worked on.
MSteere asked, “If a tree is about 6’ round, why is the top just removed?” DCrane responded that some landowners want tree screening, so only the top will be cut. MSteere asked, “What happens with dead trees or ones with woodpecker holes in them, why are the limbs taken and not the entire tree?” DCrane, stated, “Some landowners want to preserve the tree as a wildlife refuge.”
MSteere commented that there is a cable off a pole and is broken at 137 Muzzey Hill Rd. DCrane will forward the information to line department at PSNH.
BMarshall asked “Why does Asplundh butcher some of the trees, does that meet PSNH requirements and why isn’t the tree trimmed aesthetically?” DCrane explained that, “We take off 1/3 of the crown to get clearance, but it is policy to remove the tree if we have the landowner’s permission. However, some trees have sentimental value to the landowner, and a lot of times, that is why the crown is missing.”
DCrane also commented that state legislature has changed requirements and if tree is located in a public right-of-way, they don’t need consent of the landowner to remove the tree. That statute pertains to both scenic and public roads.
MSteere questioned, “What happens to the woodchips?” DCrane said, “PSNH is always looking for dumping locations near or at where the work is being done. MSteere suggested that woodchips can be dropped at 137 Muzzey Hill Rd. KO’Connell suggested that any wood that landowners do not want, could be donated to the wood bank. BMarshall gave the director of the Greenfield wood bank, Neal Brown’s number for DCrane to contact.
GMorris clarified to the audience that PSNH is trying to receive permission to remove trees on scenic roads. He explained that if any of the audience who are landowners could ask questions. He also explained that not all trees are located in the public right-of-ways.
The landowner at 316 Francestown Road asked, “How is PSNH going to be contacting me?” DCrane explained, “Asplundh will contact you via in person, and if no one is at home, there is a standard card that is mailed out, and contact will also be made via phone. If no one responds within 45 days, that is deemed as consent. The landowner can return by mail the card with signature noting approval, or can write a note expressing concern and have Asplundh contact them. DCrane said he has marked trees with orange flags.
.
Ken Paulsen, 49 Pine Ridge Rd, has a tree that is leaning toward the pole and should be taken care of. DCrane noted this.
7:59 pm GMorris closed public hearing. MSteere motioned that PSNH be allowed to removed trees on the scenic and public roads. BMarshall seconded the motion. Unanimous in favor carried.
PCC Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC: GMorris explained what PCC meant - preliminary conceptual consultation- which is an opportunity for the potential applicant to discuss any ideas/ proposals with the Planning Board.
Bob Grunbeck, owner, and David Hall, Hall & Hall Construction, presenters of the project said that they were here to get an idea of what you, the Planning Board, would be looking for from us in working this project.
BGrunbeck said, “The main building, we are simply trying to shore up the building because some of the defects that had been found. The pine tree on the corner had caused a serious foundation problem. The building is now on a solid foundation. There are some longstanding arguments about the drainage in front of that building, but we are fixing it. The river used to run under building and the river bed can still be seen in the basement. In talking with PHopkins and LWhite, the main building has several objectives; one to make it more appealing as it is in the center of the town, and another is to remove the ugly fire escape There are 5 residential units and restaurant. The building will be mixed use with a retail space." His question to the Board is,
“What are the requirements that are going to be put upon us?”
GMorris said if the building has not been used for more than a year, they would have to come before the Planning Board for a business site review. MSteere also commented that if they are changing the use of the building or the footprints, then you would have to come before the Planning Board.
GMorris said, “If they want to reactive the restaurant, parking would be a problem.” BMarshall commented that he is very happy with what has been done, but the parking issue has always existed, and that a solution will be tricky. GMorris asked, “How much space is in the back is for parking?” BGrunbeck responded that the residents can all park in the back which is quite helpful and also the Town has land out back for parking.
MSteere suggest that when he comes before the Board to have the parking all laid out.
GMorris said, “What would trigger a site plan review would be to change the use from residential to commercial, the impact on traffic pattern, parking, lighting, and pedestrian traffic. Those items will need to be addressed.” GMorris said, “We’ll work with you on the parking issue. You should talk to Selectmen about using the meeting house parking lot and you should designate where the tenants will park.”
GMorris asked, “If you are going to use all three floors, have you considered an elevator?” DHall said, “No, we haven’t considered one.” BGrunbeck said, “Any time you touch one of these building, it crumbles. Also the first tenants will be moving in the Long Block in the middle of March.”
GMorris commented to DHall, and BGrunbeck that we’ll need a site plan review on the retail parking, tenant parking slots and pedestrian parking and public spaces that can be utilized and a snow removal location.
BGrunbeck asked for suggestions for the retail section of the building. Some ideas were, an art studio, hair salon, retail for local artists, lawyer office, accountant office, and to offer a DSL network.
The PCC closed at 9:01 pm
9:05 pm CIP discussion: GMorris commented that he had received updates from MSteere. GMorris said, “If no changes, I will put this together.” The Select Board asked us to give them a capital expenditure plan, which was explained to them that that isn’t the Planning Board’s jurisdiction. The Planning Board identifies the different department’s priorities and put it in a report and then gives it to the Selectmen. It is the Selectmen and Budget committee responsibility to decide which priority comes first.
CIP is done every year, but every two or three years, it should be started from scratch on. A timeline for getting the information for the CIP is needed. The reports haven’t been turned in on a timely basis. It should be started in April and turned in by October.
BMarshall listed the issues to be addressed on the Groundwater Protection regulation:
· how do we determine flow/supply to an aquifer
· permits to be developed
· performance standards for drywells
· emergency management officer
· pre-existing non-conforming use
· any change necessitated - conditional use permit
· expansion of structure or continuity of use
· should we use 5 gals or 6 gals standard sized containers
· who will inspect
· fee schedule for inspections
9:27 MSteere motioned to adjourned. KO’Connell seconded. Unanimous in favor carried.
| 
