Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
November 14, 2011
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MSteere, MBorden, RWimpory, MBorden
7:08 pm MSteere began reading the October 24, 2011 meeting minutes and ended at 7:19 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. Vote carried in favor.
7:22 pm 46 Zephyr Lake deliberations began.
PRenaud recused himself and asked to record the deliberations. BMarshall appointed GMorris as an alternate for PRenaud.
BMarshall commented to the Board about what stage the deliberations are in:
Two motions were made at the October 10, 2011 meeting. The following are noted in the minutes:
- Line 439, GMorris motioned not to accept the second design as an alternative plan as we do not have enough information to be in compliance with the driveway regulations. MSteere seconded. Vote tally as follows: JFletcher voted no. GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, KO’Connell, RWimpory voted yes. Motion carried.
b) Line 444, MSteere motioned to reject the first driveway proposal as it doesn’t meet
our driveway regulations for the following reasons:
- Line 446, Sec V, M, in terms of the slopes in which 60% of the driveway are !5% or over
- Line 447, Sec V, H, horizontal curves with a direction change of more than 30 degrees shall not contain slopes of more than 12%
- Line 449, This proposal does not meet our Telecommunications/Personal Wireless Service Facilities Zoning Ordinance Sec V, G, f, since the new construction will negatively impact the 150’ tree buffer.
The Planning Board then received a letter from Infinigy Engineering dated October 27, 2011 and a new set of drawings in which Infinigy responded to questions raised at the October 10th public hearing. A discussion ensued as to whether or not this represented new information that warranted another public hearing.
BMarshall then read a letter from PRenaud, as a member of the public, which is germane to Infinigy proposal, specifically:
- RSA 676:4.i He listed specific changes to the plan drawing submitted 10/26/11 which are not present on the plans dated 9/26/11. As a result. He felt that this new information warranted a public hearing to enable the public to respond to the new information. The letter placed on file.
BMarshall then asked the Board to look at a letter received from Infinigy with a new plat dated October 27, 2011 as a supplemental submission. Also BMarshall stated for the record that the letter was place on file. Both the plat and letter have been available in CShaw’s office.
BMarshall shared a legal opinion from MSerge received via e-mail on November 1, 2011:
- Matt cites the same RSA that PRenaud made reference to in his letter to the Board.
- The Board was correct to hold a public hearing to address whether AT&T has satisfied condition #2 of the May 2011 approval (driveway plan.) He questioned if the Board could exit deliberations and then re-open the public hearing to address the letter recently submitted by Infinigy on October 27, 2011.
- BMarshall said he mailed the plat to MSerge last Thursday. MSerge was going to review it today. He left a message for BMarshall that he would e-mail his response about the plat, however BMarshall did not receive an e-mail from MSerge
.
MSerge also got a letter from JSpringer dated November 8, 2011 which BMarshall read to the letter to Board and audience.
BMarshall commented that the May 23, 2011 conditional approval had 8 items listed and that the last meeting dealt with the proposed driveway meeting our regulations and the tree buffer.
GMorris asked, “Do we have to accept this piece of paper? If these things were met, it appears that they are nickel and diming us. They presented and now they are presenting more info. This is what happened in the past.”
MSteere commented, “We said ‘no, based on original plan. One of the things I did ask of the public was, if they had all their questions answered when we closed the public portion of the hearing.” He said he had seen all the items in the Infinigy letter but hasn’t seen the plat to know that if it is all new information. He wants some time to compare the plats to see if there is new information.
BMarshall said, “If we accept the legal advice, this would remove one item from our conditions of approval.”
JFletcher is of the opinion that we should re-open the public hearing. MSteere reiterated, “We haven’t had a chance to compare the newest plat with the last plat we received. It is important that we review all the information in order to make an informed decision.”
RWimpory asked, “What happens if this were approved and they went and built the driveway. Is anyone going to look at the driveway to make sure that they are in compliance with the percentages they said are on the plat?”
MBorden said, “We have the ability to hire someone to look at the percentages and in this case, that is what we would have to do.”
MSteere moved to withdraw his original motion to reject 1st driveway proposal from deliberations on October 10, 2011. MBorden seconded the motion. It was determined that a new public hearing would be held to consider new information relative to the driveway and any other information relative to the conditional approval. December 12, 2011 at 7:30 pm. GMorris asked, “Do we, as group, have time to review the newest plat in the next working meeting?” BMarshall asked that the Board take time to individually look at the drawings so that we can verify the items that were stated and met. Drawing involved are 7/21/11, 9/28/11 and 10/26/11 submissions.
JFletcher wants to make sure that they, Infinigy, are aware that they can come back with another proposal for the woods road. What they wrote in item 1of their letter, is not exactly as the motion was made. It was not to not accept 2nd design for the woods road access. We are willing to look at more information for the woods road. He would like to note for the record that the item #1 of the Infinigy letter dated October 27, 2011 the wording does not match the motion on October 10¸ 2011 meeting.
BMarshall said, “We don’t want to be waffling in our deliberations. We must be consistent in that the driveway must comply with driveway regulations. In terms of time frame before the clock expires on conditional approval, we told them to comply with our driveway regulations, which the new plat allegedly does. We can’t create a second quandary for them.”
RWimpory asked, “In JStevens letter of 10/26/11, and his statistics/data concerning the runoff, “At what point, if any, does the DES have to be talked to?” BMarshall said,”The Alteration of Terrain permit is a DES the permit. They will have an engineer check the road for runoff.” RWimpory then asked, “Are we qualified to go through the plan properly?” BMarshall responded, “Yes, as we best can. We’d need an engineer to verify the calculations of the driveway, but we do the best we can.” At this point, BMarshall closed the deliberations.
8:22 pm PRenaud rejoined the meeting.
8:23 pm Draft Proposal of Master Plan
BMarshall said there are two things that Lisa Murphy, SWRPC suggests be done:
- Create a vision section
- Create Existing land use plan.
LMurphy outlined in the draft proposal what the SWRPC would do, fees involved and a projected schedule of events.
MSteere asked, “What if we fall behind on project schedules? What will SWRPC do? How does she want to be paid?” BMarshall said he will ask her.
MSteere motioned to go forward with SWRPC proposal on the Master Plan. MBorden seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
8:33 pm Groundwater Ordinance Draft
In an e-mail to BMarshall, KDay disagreed with the Board’s decision not consult with legal. She suggests that if ordinance passes without legal review and someone contests it, then the money not spent will become costly legal fees. BMarshall asked the Board, “Do you want to reconsider review by a lawyer?” The Board said, agreed to have a a legal review.”
8:40 pm Open Space Ordinance
BMarshall commented that the population of the Town from the 2010 census now exceeds 1700 people. In light of the fact that we are going to conduct research for our master Plan, should we wait until we get a sense of the community vision for the town before we move forward on the Commercial Open Space Ordinance and the Commercial Wind Ordinance? We, as a Board, have really spent little time on these two ordinances.” MSteere said, “He felt that we should put something in place in our ordinances. We can always amend it.” MBorden agreed that we need the open space ordinance.
BMarshall asked the Board if they would like to go forward with discussion of commercial open space ordinance as drafted. KO’Connell, JFletcher, MSteere, PRenaud and MBorden all agreed.
MBorden said he like the open space ordinance, but we need to look at where the commercial space is located in town. MSteere said we need to look at what space is available in town that could be commercial. MSteere asked the Board to read through it and make suggestions/corrections for discussion at our next meeting.
9:08 pm Wind Ordinance
PRenaud commented on his research of wind ordinances. It’s a calculated risk, as it would be a year before the wind ordinance would be presented on a ballot for voting. Also wind companies search for towns that do not have wind ordinances and are pushing their constructions of the turbines through. PRenaud will be attending a presentation at Temple town hall to gather information about wind ordinance. He said, “If I get the feeling that this group is going to be coming to Greenfield within the next year, then I want a basic ordinance on the ballot. If we were to put the ordinance on the ballot today, totally banning wind turbines, we should tell the town it’s for one year, just so it would be in place, and then we can get the town’s input on it and amend the ordinance
later.”
BMarshall asked the Board, “Do we want to continue with both ordinances after we get feedback from town? Do we want to tailor make our ordinances to the towns needs?” The Board’s feeling was to address that question at our next work session on November 28.
KO’Connell asked if anyone had looked at the wind maps for the town. Several members said that they didn’t know any were available. He will e-mail them to the members.
PRenaud asked said he would look at the wind maps and that he was willing to let this go for a year.
9:22 pm Unregistered Trailers, Storage and/or Refuse containers:
BMarshall read the draft ordinance proposed by KO’Connell. Following discussion, the Board agreed to remove refuse containers from the ordinance.
As a result of the discussion, the Board agreed to the following language:
Section IV General Regulations and Restrictions
Q. Unregistered Trailers and Storage Containers
It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any premises to have or permit thereon any unregistered trailer or storage container within the lot’s building setback unless such placement is temporary and associated with on site building construction or renovation. Such placement shall occur only after receiving a permit issued by the Code Enforcement Officer for a period of sixty (60) days or less. Such permit is renewable.
Violations of the foregoing shall be punishable by a fine of not more than twenty ($20) dollars.
Each day of non-compliance shall constitute a separate offense.
9:52 p.m. Mail Received:
- Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes October 27, 2011
- Greenfield Building Permits 2011 Y-T-D
- Return Certified for Alvin Hanson
- Returned Certified notice for SM MCCandless-Knight
- SWRPC Newsletter
- NH Environmental Services
- Letter from PRenaud, re: 46 Zephyr Lake Rd Cell Tower
- Site Plan from Florida Tower Partners plans dated 10/26/11- 6 copies
9:56 pm. Site walk review of the lighting at Greenfield Meetingplace. The light at the corner of the building does not clearly shine on the curb and corner of Slip and Forest Road. MSteere said that it appears that the Town will have to install lighting down in the parking lot behind the property. He felt that BGrunbeck should illuminate the intersection, as he discussed in a previous meeting.
KO’Connell said the light on the corner of building is unacceptable as it violates Section IV M of our Town ordinance: “Outdoor lighting shall be shielded in such a manner that will not cause glare or direct lighting on any adjacent property or cause glare to passing vehicles on adjacent streets and it will be shield to point the light downward.”
The Board felt that the best solution, in the interest of public safety and aesthetics, was to have Mr. Grunbeck install a light matching those that the Town had installed to illuminate the intersection of Slip and Forest Road, the new curbed portion and the crosswalks located there.
MSteere moved that the Planning Board request of Mr. Grunbeck that he install a light similar in design to those that the Town has installed in the downtown area in the newly curbed area at the corner of Slip and Forest Roads. He suggested that Mr. Grunbeck be given sixty days to comply. Following discussion on the motion, he agreed to withdraw the compliance deadline.
MBorden seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried.
BMarshall will communicate the Board’s wishes to Mr. Grunbeck. The Board will sign off on the development when the lighting is installed.
10:12 pm MSteere motioned to adjourn. MB seconded. Vote carried in favor.
| 
