Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
September 26, 2011
Members present: RMarshall, PRenaud, JFletcher, KO’Connell (arrived at 8:20 pm), MSteere, MBorden, RWimpory, GMorris (sitting in for JFletcher)
7:02 pm MBorden began reading the 9/12/11 meeting minutes and ended at 7:16 p.m. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made. MSteere motioned to accept the minutes as amended. MBorden seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
7:19 p.m. Mail Received:
- Local Government Center Brochure – Conference Preview Guide 2011
- New Hampshire Town and City Magazine September 2011 issue
- Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes dated August 25 and September 8 2011
- 7 copies of Preliminary Data packets for the CIP 2012- 2021
- Fed-Ex letter from JSpringer containing updated abutter list and 2 sets of mailing labels for 46 Zephyr Lake Road, Greenfield, NH- cell tower
PRenaud questioned if any additional information was received for the public and the Board as he requested at the last meeting. Where is it? RWimpory said that JStevens agreed to have this information to us by 9/19.
GMorris commented, “In the past when they have come to us with new data, we have accepted it, stopped any talk about it, waited until the info was posted so the public could look at it. We can take in the current proposal, but we can also look at the newer info, and then stop the discussion and allow the public to view it.”
RMarshall commented, “The reason for a public hearing is to give the public a chance to respond to this info. We’ve had times where a public hearing was done, and then we had to continue the public hearing so the public had enough time to review was presented.”
RWimpory asked, “Why would we accept anything at all until we have a letter from DES that says the driveway is OK as presented? RMarshall answered, “If a new proposal comes in, any DES letter may be moot as the newest driveway wouldn’t have been viewed by DES.”
RWimpory commented, “Why would we waste our time on this without that letter?” MSteere commented that DES is very slow in getting a comment from them unless it concerns sewage.
RMarshall commented that they wanted to ask conceptual questions, and we said no. We told them in our last meeting that they can’t do that as any questions/information has to be in a public hearing.
A strong discussion about the request for information prior to a public hearing for public and the Board’s perusal followed. MSteere injected strongly, “We’ll close this piece now.”
7:56 p.m. LMurphy, SWRPC presentation: Guiding Change, Planning Tools for your Community and said a CD is available to all members of the Board. She commented that there are many links to different websites with lot more information and is very user friendly.
Listed below are some of the highlights she touched upon:
- Innovative land use planning techniques guide
- Transportation demand management, staff is on hand to answer questions
- Brownfields: intent to clean up property to make them useful and bring in tax dollars
- CEDS program
- GIS: geographic information systems – mapping with many different layers
RMarshall asked how to use the CD. LMurphy said to use it as a reference. The links are the most important place to find information. MSteere asked, “How often is this information updated? LMurphy commented, “It depends on the website that you are visiting.”
Master Plan updates:
MSteere asked, “Is the format that was used last time still the same?”
LMurphy commented, “Has it worked for you? There is no right or wrong way and I suggest you use the same format you are currently using. She said our Master Plan definitely needs division sections, which is a requirement with the state. Previously it was called goals and objectives. Now the state said they want specific divisions. One idea used to complete the divisions section was to do a photo survey. One town asked fifth, sixth and seventh graders to do the photo survey as they came up with the most innovative ideas for future goals for their town. Another is to have a written survey done which could be passed out at a town meeting, at an old homestead day or harvest day. Getting a variety of different viewpoints from all including the youngsters provided the best information for
future goals of a town.
LMurphy comments:
- Traffic and transportation section needs to be updated.
- Population and housing … use the census information on the CD, use graphs and charts to show the changes
- Future land use plan may change
- May want to consider Energy planning
MSteere said the Town has provided a special zone for CMRC and they will be putting in new housing and adding population, what section should that information go under? LMurphy commented, “It probably should go under land use section. Perhaps, a separate section needs to be added to cover CMREC as it could also be in population and land use sections as well.
LMurphy said, “Support the Master Plan sections with other documents such as site plan review regulations, subdivision regulations, and zoning ordinances changes. Without the Master Plan, you couldn’t have zoning ordinances. It can also keep you out of lawsuits. Make sure any changes done since 2003 are supported in your Master Plan with documentation. A whole section isn’t needed, but a reference in the Master Plan is necessary.
MSteere said we should pull town reports to check zoning ordinance changes since 2003 to make sure they are consistent with the Master Plan.
LMurphy on the energy chapter, “If you are trying to encourage something, make sure you put it in the Master Plan. The Master Plan is helping to build solid movement towards goals with a trail showing consistency and hard work for the community.
RMarshall asked, “To what extent is the land use section dependent upon completion of other sections, such as transportation?”
LMurphy commented that the CD will provide information about transportation such as accidents that happened, traffic counts, etc. which shows different way to update Master Plan and how it will affect land use. She suggested that Chairman should assign different people to different sections to gather information for the sections which need updating. She concluded her presentation at 8:36 p.m.
8:37 p.m. CIP
GMorris and MSteere are meeting to finalize the CIP information in CD form. MSteere will insert the wording. RMarshall confirmed that the wording and plan will be done by GMorris and MSteere by next Monday. By October 5, GMorris and MSteere will e-mail with attachments to the Board as well to CShaw to make the plan available for public consumption.
RMarshall said, “We have noticed the public hearing for CIP and we will have an opportunity to make changes on the document. After the 10/10 public hearing, the wording will be finalized.
RWimpory questioned the DPW garage cost? MSteere said that he talked with the Road Agent and he said $500,000 is the cost.
MSteere said that the budget committee will come in when CIP is presented to Selectmen and will prioritize the major items.
RMarshall said, “Based on what you heard from LMurphy, what budget needs to be put together for Master Plan?” MSteere said, “We can shift some of the legal/consultant line to CIP budget so that CIP can be done in a 2 year time frame.”
Master Plan-Budgeting
RMarshall said, “Should we use unexpended funds in our legal/consultants line to begin Master Plan development? We could contract with those already appropriated funds and begin work with SWRPC for our Master Plan while reducing the impact of budget increases for planning in our 2012 budget requests.”
KO’Connell asked, “Are questions about the vision, as required in the Master Plan, reflected in the survey of community members we used last time?” RMarshall said, “Yes.”
GMorris commented, “If funds aren’t used this year, does the remainder go into general reserve?” MSteere said, “If we have signed a contract before end of the year, it won’t. So we need to get a legal/consulting contract done with SWRPC.”
GMorris moved that the Planning Board get a signed contract with SWRPC to begin work on the Master Plan in the calendar year 2011 and to commit up to $6K of our current budget. MBorden seconded. MSteere said we need to make sure that we have the funds in legal/consulting line item that can be used. Vote carried in favor. The 2012 budget needs to have a separate line item listed as planning.
9:07 p.m. Groundwater Ordinance
RMarshall will e-mail Pierce Rigrod for the groundwater models as LMurphy didn’t have them with her. Also he commented he and PRenaud attended the lecture on groundwater last week. He asked PRenaud to highlight the meeting’s contents.
PRenaud commented that the lecture centered on Pre-emption and included a discussion on commercial wind generation. It would be a good idea for the Planning Board to get input on industrial wind generation from the town. PRenaud said as it is hard to predict if wind generators will be coming into town, but an ordinance should be in our regulations, especially in light of recent developments in Antrim and New Ipswich.
GMorris asked, “How can we regulate them?” MSteere said, “Don’t allow them period.” GMorris said, “If we put in an ordinance banning wind generation, can the state override it?” PRenaud said, “Yes, the state regulates any commercial wind facilities that generate over 30 megawatts-Local communities regulate between below 30 megawatts. RMarshall said we should look at tax revenue on such a facility that would come into town.
RMarshall asked, “Do you want to pursue this discussion, get a model of an ordinance, and propose it to the town? RWimpory said the ordinance should have it up to 30 megawatts.
RMarshall asked, “Would someone be willing to bring in a model ordinance on wind towers?” PRenaud said he will do that. MBorden will do research on wind towers and then report back to Board. RWimpory will call the town of Lempster and inquire about their towers and ordinance.
GMorris is going to review the zoning ordinance and special exception regulations and then will make up the criteria for the special exception concerning commercial wind power.
KO’Connell asked, “How should we codify language for temporary storage buildings in side setback regulation? Our ordinance says you can’t build within the 50’ setback property line. This was brought to us by PHopkins, the Building Inspector. We will continue this discussion.
RMarshall noted to the Planning Board that the next meeting will be October 10, 2011. At 7:30 p.m. CIP public hearing will begin with an 8:15 start time for the cell tower public hearing.
The October 24 meeting will include follow-up on public input from the CIP hearing, models of groundwater permits, research conducted for potential commercial wind generation zoning ordinance, budget discussion and more.
GMorris commented that he looked for Master Plan report card review and couldn’t find it and is going to ask CShaw if he can look for it in the Selectmen records.
9:57p.m. GMorris motioned to adjourn. KO’Connell seconded. Vote carried in the affirmative.
| 
