Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
March 28, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, Selectmen RWimpory
Meeting called to order at 7:03 pm
Mail Rec’d:
1. CD recording of March 14, 2011 meeting
2. Report from MHutchins re: Review of AT&T Drive Test Data
3. Report from KBreuer, AT&T RF Engineer (information sent to MHutchins)
4. Standard Dredge & Fill Permit Application Slip Road & Otter Brook, Greenfield NH from Meridian
5. Letter from CDumas dated March 28, 2011, placed on file
6. SWRPC Citizen Planner Collaborative Brochure, April 14, 2011
7. LGC Brochure for Local Workshop May 9 thru June 11, 2011
8. Received check from PSNH for 2/17/11 meeting notification, amount $73.20
Minutes: 7:03pm MSteere began reading the meeting minutes of March 14, 2010. The following changes were made:
Line 21: changed the word Transcription to Transcript
Line 54: place an open quote mark at the beginning of sentence. “We should be able to give
Line 54: changed the word “them” to CMRC
Line 55: changed the word prospective to perspective
Line 62: deleted the ‘s’ on the word presents
Line 65: deleted the ‘d’ on the word removed
Line 76: removed the second 'should' in the sentence
Line 98: inserted the word AT&T after the word applicant
Line 130: changed GM to GMorris
Line 138: added a question mark after the word not
7:14 p.m. MSteere motioned to accept the minutes as amended. MBorden seconded the motion. Vote unanimous in favor carried.
7:16 p.m. General discussion GMorris talked with BGrunbeck about a site plan review being scheduled for April 11, 2011 at 7:30 pm to show a rendering of the parking spaces at the back of the Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC.
CDumas asked, “Are you refusing to read any letters on the cell tower or just my letter on the conduct/procedure of the last meeting?” BMarshall asked, “Are we going contrary to what our legal counsel advised and changing our mind and reading the letter for which we just paid for?” GMorris commented that CDumas letter will be discussed further on when we get into the cell tower deliberations.
PHopkins asked if the CMRC review has been delayed and what was decided. SPennoyer called GMorris and said that they are waiting to see if they get the financing before they come before Planning Board.
7:29 p.m. GMorris asked if the Planning Board has any questions. BMarshall commented, “Chairman you mentioned at the last meeting that CIP worksheets would be available. Are they? A comment was made that the CIP is in limbo with DPW info. MSteere asked, “If a Road Commission is created, they should provide info for the CIP?” GMorris commented that he would like to finalize the current CIP at next meeting and to start looking at next year’s CIP. MBorden said, “Every 3 years, the CIP should be totally revamped.” GMorris stated, “How do we want to approach the next one?” BMarshall said, “Let’s put the CIP timeline together now ---before Oct as I don’t want to sit and wait until a Road Commission is put together. I’d like to get as much together now if possible.”
Info packets to Dept Heads by 5/1/11 ( assign board members responsibilities)
Start collection of data from Dept Heads by 6/1/11
All info from Dept Heads complete by 7/25/11
Planning Board complete review and compilation of info by 9/1/11
Board finalize CIP for vote to go to public hearing by 9/12/11
1st public hearing for CIP 9/26/11
JFletcher made a motion to read CDumas' letter dated March 28, 2011. KO’Connell seconded the motion. JFletcher feels that some of the letter does deal with application, but mostly deals with procedural issues of the board and with openness and fairness to all, this isn’t a good time to cut off comments about the procedure. MBorden also commented that some of the items that CDumas touched on are the same as what legal counsel also raised. JFletcher also felt it would be helpful for the public to understand where the Board is coming from. “Because of the contentiousness of this application, I feel it would be worthwhile to keep the openness to the public.” RWimpory said, “Read it or not, but don’t censor it.” KO’Connell asked to define public hearing. MSteere commented, “We try to be open on all issues, and mostly likely will re-open the public hearing on this proposal.” GMorris called for a vote in favor of reading CDumas' letter, three votes in the affirmative, two votes
in negative, and one abstaining. Vote in favor carried. CDumas’ letter read by GMorris at 7:50 pm.
Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application:
7:53 pm SChicoine requested to make a recording of this portion of the meeting. There were no objections.
PRenaud recused himself from deliberations. He stated that he will remain as a member of the public as an active participant in opposition of this application. BMarshall will sit in for him.
GMorris then commented, “We met with town counsel. One of the things that Town Counsel informed us of is, “What is evidence and at what point do we collect it and not collect it. By our requesting a drive test, that is considered new information. And as such the public should have a right to comment on it. In addition, we accepted from the applicant at the last meeting a revised driveway plan and that can be construed as new evidence. So we need to have public comment on that as well. I did go back and review the minutes from the closure of the public hearing and looked for anything new received from the applicant and the only thing we questioned were the coverage maps which resulted in the drive test and the driveway plan." BMarshall commented, “It is my recollection that the public
hearing should be opened for the discussion of new evidence.” GMorris agreed with the comment.
MSteere motioned that at the appropriate time the public hearing be re-opened for the discussion of the drive test and the revised driveway plan. MBorden seconded the motion. GMorris called for a vote . Vote unanimous in favor carried.
GMorris commented that he received MHutchins' report and KBreuer's e-mail to MHutchins. GMorris asked JSpringer if he agreed that this was the report to be reviewed. JSpringer commented that he just got the e-mail this morning and agreed that this was the report to be reviewed. GMorris also pulled all of the abutters’ information and made copies for the notification of the upcoming re-opened public hearing. GMorris noted that there had been three abutter changes. He made corrections to the copies and gave them to SRossi for processing.
GMorris asked JSpringer if there was anything else to be submitted. JSpringer commented, “No. We’ve only submitted what was requested by you.” GMorris set the public hearing for April 25, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. GMorris advised everyone that there is narrow scope of discussion for the public hearing, the revised driveway plan and the drive test with coverage maps. GMorris said to the audience that the drive test report from MHutchins and KBreuer information will be available to the public tomorrow for review. GMorris asked does the Board want to deliberate on any of this information? We should wait until the public hearing. How about any of the past stuff? “
GMorris asked to JSpringer, “Do you have anything else you want to bring to the Board tonight?” JSpringer replied, “I’d like to respond to letter that was read earlier.” GMorris replied, “No,once you respond I have to open up the hearing.” The Board voted to read it and that it is." MBorden said, “We accept new letters but do not have read them, just record them into the file.” BMarshall suggested that JSpringer submitted a letter explaining his objections to the CDumas letter. KO’Connell pointed out that the letter didn’t address anything that was pertinent to the case, but on the conduct of the meeting.” GMorris told the audience if you want to ask a procedural question, you may. EAnderson commented that he had
a procedural question, “Can the public bring in their expert witness?” GMorris commented, “It is a public hearing, so anyone can speak. CDumas,stated that the communication was not meant to be any criticism of you. GMorris responded, “That it was good input for me on how I ran the meeting.”
JMoran’s procedural question, “If the public disagrees with town counsel on the Board’s discretion to read or not read letters and to be involved with deliberations, what is the public’s recourse?” GMorris said, “Your recourse, if we decided a certain way and you disagree with the Board’s decision, I would believe that would be the basis of a court case.” GMorris said, “Once we entered into deliberations, that is it. If we have asked for additional information from the applicant and the public in providing new evidence, then we must re-open the public hearing. “
JFletcher commented that if somebody truly wanted an answer about new evidence, the question would have to go through GMorris.
8:20 p.m. MSteere motioned that deliberations be continued April 25 2011 at 7:30 pm JFletcher seconded the motion. Vote unanimous in favor carried.
BMarshall asked if we were going to deliberate something else about case. GMorris went through his list of items already discussed. We discussed the hydrologist and the noise ordinance. BMarshall stated that we have had some public comment on the noise since closing the public hearing via a letter from the public.
Noise: BMarshall asked if we want to revisit that deliberation raising the issue of noise, by the letter from SKnight and JStreit dated March 12, 2011. BMarshall commented about procedural process that the Board went through that SKnight and JStreit have questioned. It’s a procedural question that GMorris will ask legal counsel. BMarshall said, “If the Board did not address that procedure correctly, then are we in error in our review of the evidence on the noise issue.”
RWimpory asked, “Where can I get the information on this case because if I were to vote now, I couldn’t.” Members of the Board informed RWimpory to read the minutes online and to look at the file which is opened to the public. GMorris explained to RWimpory, “That a duly elected member of the Planning Board has the right to sit on a case and make a decision and that the Planning Board has no right to recuse a member.” RWimpory said, “I will vote for the best interest of the town.” He also questioned if all the abutters had been sent notice of the public hearing and can anyone speak?
8:32 pm BMarshall asked, “If we should/could volunteer now for the responsibilities of information gathering from the department heads for the CIP?
GMorris asked, “Who would like what section of the CIP worksheet?”
Library – BMarshall and also consulting with the Mountaineers for Oak plans
DPW Vehicles – KO’Connell
DWP – KO’Connell
Roads – KO’Connell
Police – MSteere
Fire – JFletcher
Town Clerk/Tax Collector – GMorris
Admin Asst – GMorris
Recycling – MBorden
Info packets to dept heads by May 1
Collect data from dept by June 1
GMorris will work with PRenaud on excel spreadsheet
MSteere motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 pm. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote unanimous in favor carried.
| 
