Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
September 12, 2011
Members present: BMarshall, PRenaud, JFletcher, KO’Connell, MSteere, MBorden, RWimpory, GMorris
7:03 p.m. MSteere began reading the meeting minutes of August 22, 2011 with GMorris finishing at 7:11 p.m. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made. MBorden motioned to accept the minutes as amended. MSteere seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
GMorris commented that the Planning Board did review the Master Plan two years ago and gave report card to Select Board.
7:21 p.m. Mail Rec’d:
- Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes – July 28, 2011
- Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes – August 10, 2011
- Planning Board Budget Report YTD
- Greenfield Congregational Covenant Church – brochure “In Remembrance of September 11”
- SWRPC Commission Highlights August 2011
- Local Government Center-Law Lectures brochure
- SWRPC memo of upcoming events
- September 1, 2011 letter from Infinigy re: 46 Zephyr Lake Rd application
RMarshall noted that there is a law lecture series thru SWRPC this coming week. RMarshall and PRenaud will be attending at the September 21 Lecture #2 Antioch College, in Keene NH.
GMorris asked RMarshall for a copy of the corrected lot number changes for the zoning ordinance for CMREC district for his records.
GMorris reported on CIP spreadsheets where he has entered the data he’s received. He said that those that are done are marked on the lower right hand corner, but he still needs information on DWP roads, facilities and vehicles. He also said that the Parks & Recreation sheet is blank as there is no longer a Parks & Recreation department.
RMarshall said he has tentatively planned a public hearing for October 10, 2011 for CIP. GMorris said he needs the DPW information so that MSteere can put together the wording of the CIP. MSteere commented that the second police cruiser is $25K and will start in 2013 instead of 2012. RMarshall commented that the second set of library sheets given to GMorris had been amended. RMarshall asked the Planning Board, “Does it look like we are going to get to the CIP’s October 10 public hearing? “ It appears that CIP public hearing will be scheduled at that time.
7:29 p.m. RMarshall said the agenda indicates a PCC for Infinigy. However he commented that he used the wrong wording for the agenda. SChicoine asked to record this portion of the Planning Board meeting.
PRenaud commented in the Town’s site plan review regulations for application procedures Sec 5 #1. He read the applicant’s options for the pre-application consultation under RSA 676.4 which explains the preliminary conceptual consultation. “I’m not going to read the whole statement, as everyone here knows what PCC means. And in OEP hand book, we have here Phase One which is step one of the whole application review process. The final application was delivered in May 2010 and a final resolution has not occurred. You can call it a PCC or conceptual consultation, but I can’t find anything in our regulations, state regulations or the OEP that allows any type of non-binding conceptual consultation once an application has been submitted. It must be introduced as part of a public hearing,
assuring that the public has an opportunity to be notified of the proposal and an opportunity to respond to the proposal.”
RMarshall said, “You object to a PCC because there is an application all ready on the table and this is not preliminary?” PRenaud said, “Yes, and that without a public hearing, this isn’t fair to the public. Also at the July 7, 2011 meeting of this Board, it was decided at that time to not have a PCC, as there was one before the Board at that time. Now I can say that if you want a PCC or conceptual consultation, then they could withdraw their current application and start all over again and you could look at this as a PCC. I do not see how legally and in fairness to this Board we can have this now as this would basically be a free exchange between applicant and the Board with no input from the public. Nothing is binding.” MSteere agrees with this, and suggested that if they
have questions they need answered from the Board, a public hearing is needed. RWimpory asked, “I thought this was a public hearing?” RMarshall said, “This is a hearing, but not a public hearing which has been noticed in the paper.” GMorris said, “Great catch, Bob. PRenaud is absolutely right as this isn’t an approved plan, and we told them that when we approved their application; the driveway plan must meet our driveway regulations.”
GMorris said, “If they start nickel and diming it, and that is what happened before when I was Chairman, this whole process was dragged out.” RWimpory said, “If they don’t bring an acceptable plan to the Board, then where do we stop this from escalating as it did last time. “
RMarshall read the provision of the approval of the application, “The applicant must provide to the Planning Board a revised driveway configuration or design that satisfies the driveway regulation and is acceptable to the Planning Board. Now, in response, part of the reason I e-mailed all of you, not successfully in some ways, but followed up later on, is that I received a letter from JStephens, President of Infinigy, and he wanted to talk about a different design to meet the driveway regulations and wanted a general discussion as to where to go with this new concept and what the Planning Board’s thoughts were as they try to meet our driveway regulations.”
KO’Connell said, “We have before us two possible designs with two new public hearings.” MSteere said, “They can have many different designs before us, but they need a public hearing for each design.”
RMarshall said, “Mr. Stevens, I’d like to let you speak, but the Board is actually deliberating your request for the PCC. I tried to do that via e-mail and with the holiday, we are now deciding upon your request.” JStevens, “I understand and agree with you.”
GMorris said, “We gave them a year to meet our driveway requirements and if the driveway configuration doesn’t meet our regulations, then may submit another one.”
PRenaud said, “It’s open to interpretation, and I don’t know if I should comment on this particular aspect.” RMarshall said, “Right, now that we are here, you are right. This first was procedural and I appreciate your input.” PRenaud said, “I wasn’t part of that actual decision on the application.”
MSteere said, “If there are multiple parts to the driveway configuration, and with them having a year to meet the requirements, they are allowed to put in multiple plans with multiple public hearings.”
RMarshall said, “Am I hearing that the Board does not want to see anything that might be potentially proposed tonight, but want to hear it in a public hearing.” MSteere responded, “Yes, I feel it should be heard in a public hearing.”
RMarshall said, “I feel this is a request for clarification from Infingy so they can bring their plans forward, and I may have misspoken in using the term “PCC.” I wanted to try and facilitate/meet his need for direction/clarification in order to move forward toward a public hearing for review of their new design/concepts. Because there wasn’t enough time to post a public hearing after receipt of his letter of September 1, 2011, I was trying to move the process forward to bring this to a conclusion. I shouldn’t have done that.”
RWimpory said, “PRenaud’s bringing the procedural point to our attention for the public hearing as required was clarified to the Board. Also I believe that we asked for other parts to be completed, such as the letter from DES, which we haven’t received.”
MSteere moved that any driveway plans/concept for this application require a public hearing. KO’Connell seconded. JFletcher commented, “To respond to the letter, legally.” RMarshall responded that he would be writing a letter to JStephens. Vote carried in favor. PRenaud abstained.
PRenaud requested that any information that is received from JStevens be available by September 26, 2011.
The public hearing will be scheduled for October 10, 2011 at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Stevens will have updated information, as requested in our August 10, 2011 letter, available by September 19, 2011.
8:00 p.m. RMarshall commented that LMurphy is now the Senior Planner at SWRPC and she will be working with us as we proceed with Master Plan development. She also wants to meet with us about the “Guiding Change: Planning Tools for your Community” CD and Manual we received last June. She will be here on September 26 and will be talking about the CD and Manual and will be discussing our Master Plan goals. We’ve got suggestions from our last meeting, so please review the plan and have questions ready for her. She will also have the groundwater revision permit models ready for us for January. Final preparations for the Public Hearing on the CIP will be the second item on the agenda.”
MS commented, “Having an open space industrial development area/location regulation should be a priority.” RMarshall asked MSteere to put together a draft for open industrial space for discussion. MSteere agreed.
GMorris commented that after he looked at CMREC district, he might have a minor change in the zoning ordinance.
8:12 p.m. MSteere motioned to adjourn. KO’Connell seconded. Vote carried in favor.
| 
