Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
May 23, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall (alternate), PRenaud, JFletcher, KO’Connell, RWimpory
7:38 pm GMorris re-opened the 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application deliberations
PRenaud recused himself from deliberations and asked to record the meeting. GMorris asked alternate BMarshall to sit in for him.
GMorris discussed the possible alternate site locations at the Fire Station and CMRC water tower stating that trading one tower to two did not give any more coverage. Those two alternative sites do not help us to gain the coverage that we need. BMarshall said he agrees.
GMorris then asked if any further discussion on the noise ordinance was needed. KO’Connell commented, “We have the ordinance that will govern the noise levels.” MBorden agreed.
GMorris said next is the driveway waiver.
7:43 pm MSteere motioned to not grant the driveway waiver. MBorden commented that with many segments greater than 19%, if we consider all these factors, 14 out of the 24 segments exceed 19%, I don’t see how we can grant this. We have previous driveways in town exceeding the requirements by much less than this and we didn’t grant. GMorris mentioned that only one road was granted at 1% over the road limit and that was for a very short stretch. KO’Connell said, “It was mentioned several times in previous minutes about the maintenance and trucks going up this steep slope, this waiver should not be granted.” GMorris said, “Along with the steepness of the driveway, the disruption of the natural flow coming off the hill, and with the re-routing the flow, there could be
new water paths that could be detrimental to the wetlands.” JFletcher seconded the motion at 7:48 pm
7:49 GMorris called for non-granting of driveway waiver. Vote carried in favor.
JFletcher said, “My definition of dense tree growth is different from others, and I want to make sure that no more clearing is done at the site.”
8:06 pm GMorris said, “Now what do we do with the application?” BMarshall motioned to conditionally approve the application subject to completion of the following to the satisfaction of the Planning Board:
1. Project must follow all representations shown in the site plan dated March 14, 2011.
2. Applicant must provide the Planning Board with a revised driveway configuration/design that satisfies the Greenfield Driveway Regulations and is acceptable to the Planning Board (wetlands, impact, etc.).
3. Applicant must maintain the driveway year round.
4. Applicant must secure a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the tower height.
5. Applicant must present a foundation design, once the site conditions are known, that does not negatively impact the local aquifer.
6. Applicant must follow requirements of Section G (1) (f) of the Telecommunications section of the Zoning Ordinance by ensuring that a buffer of dense tree growth will surround the facility.
7. Applicant will return to the Planning Board with a final proposal showing the buffer, and will provide the Planning Board with a final easement deed that protects the buffer.
8. All conditions must be met within one (1) year for final approval.
KO’Connell asked, “Does the driveway’s new plan have to come before the Board and would a public hearing have to be held?” GMorris said, “Any changes on the existing plan would have to be noted and we would have to have a public hearing on substantial changes.”
BMarshall said, “I disagree with my colleague. It seems to me, we are, with this decision bringing closure to this process and it appears to me that the Planning Board has the wherewithal whether or not the subsequent driveway design complies with the driveway regulation. If we decide that it does, it would be the Planning Board’s responsibility to make the decision to have or not have a public hearing.”
MSteere said, “Say they found a driveway from another lot that meets the Town’s regulations, they would have to come before the Planning Board. BMarshall said, “If they come in and are compliant with no changes, then I don’t see why another public hearing would be held.”
JFletcher said, “If we have a new driveway, will we need to have a site walk?” MSteere said, “If the driveway comes in from another location, yes.”
JFletcher asked, “If two years from now could a new Planning Board sign off on this application?” GMorris took time to look up conditional approval requirements in the NH Planning and Land Use Regulation handbook, 2010-2011, and was unable to locate any time frame.
BMarshall said, “The Planning Board could put a time limit on this decision if we felt it was needed. He then added to his proposal a one year time limit. GMorris called for the vote.
8:08 pm MBorden seconded motion. GMorris called for a vote: MSteere, no, MBorden, BMarshall, KO’Connell, JFletcher, RWimpory, yes, GMorris abstain. Vote carried in favor.
8:09 pm GMorris closed the Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application deliberations.
8:10 PRenaud returned to the meeting and BMarshall returned to alternate status.
8:10 p.m. Mail Rec’d:
1. CD recording of 5/9/11 meeting re: Zephyr Lake Rd Cell Tower
2. Greenfield Building Permits 2011 year-to-date
3. Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes for May 9, 2011
4. Memo from CShaw re: Zoning Ordinance for CMREC Boundaries
5. LGC Publications Catalog Spring 2011
6. SWRPC Annual Meeting Notice for June 21, 2011
7. LGC May 2011 Town & City magazine
8. Memo from Board of Selectmen advising of non-renewal subscription for RSA books
9. Received an Application for Site Plan Review from Greenfield Historical Society
GMorris read a memo from CShaw concerning the CMREC boundaries. GMorris said that he would talk with CShaw on Tuesday about the memo.
GMorris said he will get the actual statement from lawyer to attach to application before he or KO’Connell signed the Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application. Upon further discussion it was decided that the application cannot be signed until all conditions have been met.
BMarshall questioned how the CIP worksheets were coming? MSteere noted that the DPW supervisor that was offered the job had declined. MSteere said that the Highway Road Commission should work on the CIP sheets. Members of the Planning Board were in agreement with this as it would facilitate getting the completed CIP report to the Selectmen in a timely manner.
MSteere motioned to adjourn at 8:40 pm PRenaud seconded. Vote carried in favor.
| 
