Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
March 14, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall, (alt) JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell
Mail Rec’d:
1. Received voice recording of the Feb 14, 2011 meeting minutes
2. Letter from Susan Knight & Jep Streit – re: Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower dated 3/12/11 #1 read to the audience, and placed on file (short letter)
3. Letter from Susan Knight & Jep Streit – re: Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower dated 3/12/11 #2 read to the audience, and placed on file
4. Letter from John E. Moran – re: Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower
5. Letter from Stephen Chicoine – re: Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower
6. Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes dated Feb 17 and Feb 24, 2011
7. Budget Hearing Minutes dated Feb 24, 2011
8. NH Town and City magazine
9. SWRPC brochure
10. SWRPC Commission Highlights
11. Invoice from Ledger-Transcription for PSNH Public Hearing on tree trimming
Meeting opened at 7:01 pm. GMorris announced that he had the CIP together and will try to distribute at next meeting
GMorris welcomed PRenaud to Board and queried if JFletcher and PRenaud had been sworn in. Both have.
Election of Officers:
MSteere nominated GMorris as Chairman of Planning Board. GMorris prefaced his acceptance with the possibility of other commitments which could be a reason for him to step down in the future. MBorden stated that he doesn’t feel that he is qualified to step up to Chairman should GMorris leave the office. MBorden seconded the motion for Chairman. Unanimous vote in favor carried.
MSteere nominated MBorden as Vice Chair. KO’Connell seconded this motion.
MSteere explained that MBorden could take Chairman position on a temporary basis until a new Chairman was elected. Unanimous vote in favor carried.
MSteere motioned KO’Connell as secretary. MBorden seconded the motion. KO’Connell abstained from voting otherwise unanimous vote in favor carried.
GMorris explained that Sheldon Pennoyer called about a site plan done in 2008 for CMRC Workforce housing. SPennoyer explained that the financing agency requires proof that the Planning Board approved the plan. GMorris commented that Planning Board regulations state if no building permit has been issued within a year of Site Plan Approval, then the approval is null and void. SPennoyer explained that there is no change from the original plan. He stated, “The application to NH Loan Fund was denied in 2008, again 2009, but the NH Loan Fund called and asked that they apply again." SPennoyer is asking that there be something in the minutes saying that it is the same site plan. He feels the actual construction might begin in October 2011. MSteere stated that the Planning Board did not see
anything that would remove the site plan from a positive result. We should be able to give them an affirmative prospective on the same site plan." GMorris scheduled a site plan review for CMRC Workforce Housing Plan to re-review the previously approved site plan done in 2008 for March 28, 2011 at 7:30 pm.
Minutes: 7:14 pm GMorris began reading the February 28, 2011 minutes. The following changes were made:
Line 26: deleted the ‘s’ on the word present
Line 58: deleted the foot mark after 6 and replace it with inch mark and changed the word ‘round’ to ‘diameter’
Line 97: deleted the ‘d’ on the word remove
Line 106: deleted the word ‘you’ from the sentence
Line 125: changed the word ‘reactive’ to re-activate
Line 127: deleted the word ‘is’ from the sentence
Line 157: inserted the letter ’s’ on the word put
Line 161: deleted the word ‘on’ from the sentence
At 7:29 pm MSteere motion to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded the motion. JFletcher abstained from voting. Vote in favor carried.
Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application: Deliberations continued at 7:30 pm. BMarshall asked, “Should PRenaud should recuse himself from the deliberations?” PRenaud stated he is not an abutter and would like to take part in the deliberations, but not the voting.
JFletcher asked what was done in the past about a member in recusing themselves. MSteere said that in the past they were allowed to deliberate, but didn’t take part in the voting.
GMorris stated "My concern is if we should reject this application, would that open us up to a serious court case?" BMarshall said he would like an opinion from our legal counsel. If the counsel feels it is in the best interest of the town to have PRenaud recuse himself, he should.
GMorris asked, “Does the Board itself have the right to force a recusal?” KO’Connell stated, “No. If PRenaud does not recuse himself from discussion, and the applicant says that he should, they reserve the right to bring this into court."
GMorris stated that the Board is at a crossroad here, and we need to seek legal counsel. So we are going to have to continue this session.
MSteere motioned that we seek legal counsel, get an opinion before we continue this session.
JFletcher seconded motion for discussion of the motion. JFletcher asked to read RSA 673:14 – disqualification of member.
BMarshall was wondering if the applicant could present the prepared information but have no discussion of what has been presented so as to move forward. That will give us time to study this information until we get the legal questions answered about the PRenaud recusal issue. Then at the next meeting we can ask the applicant questions.
MSteere amended his motion that we seek the legal counsel on the issue and continue the deliberation tonight to receive the information from the applicant that was prepared and to withhold discussion and questions until after the Board has received answers from legal counsel concerning participation and voting of PRenaud. MBorden seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor; KO’Connell, JFletcher, MBorden, MSteere voted in favor with PRenaud abstaining.
GMorris asked JSpringer to present his information.
JSpringer said, “I vehemently object to PRenaud sitting on the Board, especially as he won’t recuse himself. It simply isn’t fair. I object to the letters being submitted this evening. There is no new information in these letters. They are simply rehashing information already presented. I have not heard anything new in those letters. If you do get a new selectmen board rep, my concern is he will be new and hadn’t had any of this background. It is not fair to have this person vote. Letters shouldn’t be submitted in the record. We are working on the drive test which will be submitted to MHutchins tomorrow. GMorris has asked that the Board get a copy of the drive test as well.
JSpringer said, “I have 11x17 copies of the drive way work. Handouts were given out to everyone with objection to handing one to PRenaud. JSpringer said that Z5 shows that the drive way has been moved away from the property line. It shows more culverts, stone check dams, an 18” culvert, and the proposed silt fence. There are details on Z13 showing culvert rip-rap and swale termination details.
At 8:33 pm JSpringer completed presentation. GMorris set March 28, 2011 at 8:00 pm to resume the deliberations.
GM questions for town counsel:
· Explain the Board’s newest member’s participation in active opposition to current case via letters, reports. Should he recuse himself? If he doesn’t, does the Board have the power to recuse him? Should he actively participate in deliberations and in the final vote? What is the potential issue in that role? What level of participation in deliberations? How does he enter into deliberations? (reference RSA 673.14) Also how to disseminate to the Board (i.e. e-mail, letter)?
· Letters – read to Board or not. Should letters be attached to website minutes or just placed in the file? Is the letter accepted as legal, if read and placed on file? Or are the approved minutes the only legal reference?
· Nature of public hearing has been stressful. Also ask counsel about request of letter dated March 12 by public member to re-open the public hearing portion of this case.
· Ask the legal counsel to have a meeting with Planning Board. Also it was noted that JSpringer objects to having PRenaud in a meeting with town counsel.
8:53 pm MSteere move to adjourn. JFletcher seconded. Vote in favor carried.
| 
