Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 12/12/2011
Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
December 12, 2011

Members present:  RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MSteere, MBordon, RWimpory, GMorris

7:03 pm BMarshall called the meeting to order
.
7:05 pm Mail Rec’d:

  • SWRPC Commission Highlights brochure
  • LGC brochure
  • Fax from CShaw re: CMRC R2-11 (clarifying lot lines)
  • Selectmen Meeting Mins dated 10/27/11, 11/3/11, 11/5/11, 11/10/11
  • Receipts for certified notices for the public hearing on 12/12/11
  • Article from Monadnock Ledger, cell tower continuance
  • Current town officials & committees, MSteere and GMorris’s terms will expire in 2012
7:16 pm MSteere began reading the November 28, 2011 meeting minutes.  MBorden completed reading the minutes at 7:23 p.m.   Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done.  No substantive changes were made.

7:26 pm MSteere motioned to accept the November 28, 2011 meeting minutes as amended.  MBorden seconded the motion.  Vote carried in favor of accepting the minutes.

KO’Connell asked RWimpory if there was any Select Board action on the light at the lot out back in of the Greenfield Meetinghouse.  BMarshall said he had talked with the Town Administrator about the light and met with the DPW supervisor and they found a conduit with power for a light.  Also the drainage was discussed as well as the pruning of trees out back.  

7:30 pm BMarshall called the public hearing on the 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower to order, BMarshall noted that PRenaud has recused himself and GMorris is sitting in for PRenaud.  He also noted that PRenaud will be recording the session.  He informed the audience and Planning Board that new information submitted via the 10/26/11 driveway plans resulted in the Planning Board decision on 11/14/11 to hold a public hearing to consider the new information. Present  for the applicant, Florida Tower Partners, are AJ DeSantis and JSpringer, attorney.  He noted to the audience that a clipboard was being circulated and asked them to please list their name and if they were an abutter to this property.  He asked SRossi if the abutters had been property notified.  SRossi replied, “Yes.”  

BMarshall asked AJ DeSantis to present changes in the 10/26/11 driveway plans.  Before AJ DeSantis could reply, GMorris asked, “Are the 10/26/11 packet and 9/12/11 packet are the same or are they different?”  AJ DeSantis responded, “The core of the 9/12/11 plan is in the 10/26/11 packet.”   

BMarshall asked AJ DeSantis to present the 10/26/11 plan.   AJ DeSantis said, “Revision #11 is dated 10/26/11.”  BMarshall asked that Mr. DeSantis go through JStevens letter dated 10/27/11, referencing the 10/26/11 Revision #11,  point by point.   He stated this plan reverted back to a double switchback design thus removing the proposal for the woods road.  He recognized the alternate option (woods road) was denied.  He commented, “we feel that we meet all requirements.”

Points made:
  • Sheet  Z1,  the biggest change is the inclusion of a passing zone.
  • Sheet Z5 shows the changes by the addition of a passing zone, and the addition of  storm water drainage features.   
  • On Z6 a new retaining wall is at bottom of the drive where it meets the current driveway.
  • On Z6A changes were made regarding grading.  There will now be 110,000 square feet of disturbance and the State says if you disturb 100,000 square feet, an Alternation Of Terrain permit is needed.  Even if we meet Greenfields’s requirements, an AOT will have to be submitted to the State.
  • On Z6B the slopes are all presented and stations are presented.  The steepest slope is 16% after a 30’ peel off of the existing driveway.
We also added additional information on storm water drainage, including level spreaders.
On Z10 regarding culvert changes, we added a new culvert for 60,000 lbs vehicles
On Z13, we added swale details

All of these changes are listed in our letter dated 10/27/11 and all the changes are shown in detail in Revision #11, the 10/26/11 packet.

BMarshall asked if there were any questions from the Board.  MSteere asked, “Have we ever allowed any drive greater than 12% before the Planning Board.”  GMorris responded, “We have not waived the regulation in the past.”  

GMorris asked, “Of the new driveway, how much is greater than 12%?  At a previous meeting, I noted that 500’ is at a 15% slope.   AJ DeSantis responded that in the Infinigy letter dated 10/27/11,  number 2.h,  that only 235’ is 12%.  GMorris said, “Can you understand my frustration, that the 9/26/11 packet and the 10/27/11 are “at the core, the same,” so where is the magic?”  AJ DeSantis responded that the calculations were done after that presentation.    

MBorden said the calculations for the 235’ are over 15%.  GMorris interjected that he needs this information to deliberate. AJ DeSantis said, “Two sections are over 125’, one section is 45’  and two sections are190’ in length.” MSteere asked, “If you were to calculate the grade for the entire driveway, what would it be?”  AJDeSantis said at the 81.4´elevation, change is over 10%.

JFletcher said, “Are you aware that the alternative design (woods road) denial was due to inadequate information presented.”  AJ DeSantis replied that he was aware.

7:57 pm BMarshall opened meeting to the public for questions.  He asked audience members to confine their remarks to the new information, the purpose of the hearing, and avoid reiteration of points.  SChicoine, abutter, said, “We found out how easy it is to get things muddled.  The new plans now contain 235’ of slopes of 16%, on Z6B.  Note that three carriers are slated for this facility, Florida Partners, is the applicant, which is a subsidiary of Tarpon Towers of which JStevens, is an Exec VP. An AOT will be filed with the State.  He also submitted four letters addressing, driveway plans, who the applicant is, vegetative buffer, and noise issues.  “Let me make this clear. If you do approve this, in concert with others, I will file a lawsuit.  I am standing as an abutter, and have the financial means to do this.  Bottom line, you are focused too much on avoiding a law suit.  This will end in court no matter what decision you make.  Please base your decision on the merits and go from there.”

PRenaud commented that he will be joining in litigation if the Board approves this driveway plan that doesn’t meet the driveway regulations. “I want to talk about the motion on the alternate plans, made at the 10/10/11 hearing, to reject the woods road. I have a recording of 10/10/11 meeting and it very clear that the motion to reject the alternate plan was because it did not meet the driveway regulations and not because there wasn’t enough information.  Mr. Stevens did not misunderstand anything. He heard exactly what went on at that meeting.”

“I don’t really like to talk about this, but at the 11/14/11 meeting there was an e-mail read in part by BMarshall from the town attorney, stating that in his opinion, this proposal meets the driveway regulations.  It is very clear that he based his opinion on a letter from JStevens and JSpringer.  I have to seriously call attention to the competence of the town attorney to deal with this case.  If this Board adheres to this kind of legal counsel from the town attorney, if he gives you this kind of advice, then he should be at this hearing to explain the basis of his opinion so we can have the benefit of his worldly knowledge of civil engineering.  Why weren’t these letters placed on the file, the letters from JStevens and JSpringer.   

BMarshall responded that there was no letter received from JSpringer, only the one read from JStevens.  I have not been in receipt of a letter from Mr. Springer referencing a law suit.  

PRenaud said, “I am absolutely sure that you read this letter from JSpringer.”  

BMarshall said, “No, Paul you are wrong.”  

JSpringer inserted that he wrote a letter to MSerge, not to the Planning Board.  

PRenaud referenced to the 11/14/11 meeting minutes, line 65.’ MSerge also got a letter from JSpringer.  BMarshall read the letter.’   BMarshall said that the minutes were erroneous.  

CIrwin noted that the applicant stated that the area of disturbance is approximately 110,000 square feet which is on the front page on the 10/26/11 plan.  She said “The commentary states 1 million square feet, you should drop a “0”.”  

BMarshall said, “Yes, a zero needs to be removed.”  

CIrwin asked, “What is the exact area of disturbance?”  AJDeSantis said we round up, it should be 110,000, not 1 million as listed on the front page.  I checked with the Florida Tower team and they are going forward with the AOT application. CIrwin said, “So 110,000 square feet is approximately 2.5 acres or roughly an estimate of 14% of lot will be disturbed.  Does this include the retention basin?  AJ DeSantis, responded, “Yes, to best of my knowledge.”   

CIrwin said, “On Z5, the retention basin isn’t drawn to scale.  It appears to be much larger, about 250’ long.” BMarshall asked CIrwin if she felt the retention basin should be smaller on the map to bring it closer to scale.  CIrwin said, “Yes.”   CIrwin asked, “Is there any kind of setback in our regulations from the wetlands as to how far back this basin should be?”  MSteere said it has to be outside the buffer.

JFletcher said, “On the 10/10/11 unamended meeting minutes, line 431, it reads, “deliberations started at 10:47 pm. GMorris motioned to not accept the second design as an alternative plan  as we do not have enough information to be in compliance with the driveway regulations.  If that was different on the audio as to what Mr. Stevens heard, then I am sorry, I don’t know what he was hearing.”

GAustin asked, “When LWhite was here we discussed the fire apparatus, but who is our ambulance service? MSteere responded that we are First Responders, and the Peterborough ambulance provides service to us.   

SKnight asked, “What is the proposed roadside level spreader within the buffer?”    AJ DeSantis explained that it is a storm water feature that will slow the runoff as it comes down the hill with features to zero out the runoff. AJ DeSantis explained that detail #3 on Z13, shows a basin that is stone lined constructed in appropriate locations to slow the water runoff.  

RWimpory asked if it would hold 500 gallons of water. AJ DeSantis said sheet Z6A shows the dimensions of 30’ long by 4’ wide, 45’ long by 4’ deep. On Z13 the depth is based on proposed grades.  It’s sort of a swale lined with rocks.”  MSteere asked, “How deep is the swale?”  AJ DeSantis responded about 4’ deep.  A level spreader is to collect the water and slowly let it out to the owner’s property.

SKnight said, “What I am clearly seeing is that the proposed level spreader will be 45’ from my property line.  There will be no vegetative buffer which utterly ignores the 150’ vegetative buffer.  In fact, now these applicants have brought the clearing closer to my property.  They are going to have to clear cut to get this driveway within 40’ of my property.  I want the Board to know I will not grant an easement to allow this.  There is no vegetative buffer around this site as Florida Tower Partners are now using my land as the vegetative buffer and that should not be part of their application.  Another piece of this is the noise. With a reduced buffer, there is not going to be a deterrent to the noise that will be heard. The trees they plant will not deter the noise. This site is utterly inappropriate for this tower.”

CIrwin asked in reference to level spreader, in terms of location or size, if those estimates were based on excavating to bedrock or soil?   AJDeSantis said, “As part of our due diligence for the AOT permit, the very first that has to be done is that we have to conduct actual soil samples of where our proposal is and prove that we can get the infiltration rating that we predict.  We have to investigate the existing soil conditions and prove that they are that way.  If not, we have to mitigate it. CIrwin asked if the soils do not support the proposed runoff, then would the level spreaders change and must they prove to the state the changes will work?

JMathias, abutter, said “At the last meeting, I tried to speak to noise, but wasn’t allowed.   Any time you look at changing the parameters of this driveway, noise is of concern.  Looking at the proposal, the noise levels were based on one carrier, rather than 3 carriers.  During summer time, noise is going to travel.  Two major points where they are not in compliance with driveway regulations and the buffer is changed as well. I keep saying, “trying to fit round peg in a square hole doesn’t work.”   

JRenaud asked are you considering asking Florida Tower Partners to have a plan in place for all the wells on surrounding properties to mitigate, if blasting is done. BMarshall said the town does not have any regulations concerning blasting, but that the State has strict permits on blasting in place and we defer to the State.  JRenaud asked, “Could we ask the applicant to accept responsibility for any damage caused by blasting done to surrounding properties?”   MSteere said that a pre-blast and post blast survey has to be done and perhaps you should consider a time frame for that.

CDumas commented, “If one of us approached the Board to build a house on this lot, based on my experience and our regulations, I would be told ‘no’ due to the town’s regulations.  If somebody wants to come into our town, to occupy our town at the same level of compliance, as we do now, we’d expect the applicant to do the same.  As a Board you took an oath, to uphold our regulations, and we expect you do to so.”

EAnderson said, “I like to state as facts a couple of things:

Fact 1 - This site at 46 Zephyr Lake Road is designated as a steep slope area as mapped by the town.
Fact 2 - This property abuts a major aquifier for the town and State of NH. The state has established Greenfield as a top 10% aquifier in the state and a valuable resource for both town and state.  The Planning Board needs to exercise responsible stewardship for this resource.”

“You have been concentrating on slopes, but there are some other aspects of the driveway regulations that are not being met:

- minimize the amount of terrain alteration of vegetation on hillside areas prior to construction -   clearly this does not meet the requirement
- ensure the driveway’s construction doesn’t damage drainage systems or culverts -  clearly doesn’t met the requirement
- avoid unreasonable public expenditure”

PRenaud commented, “Let’s get to the heart of the matter, why this doesn’t meet driveway regulations.  On May 23, 2011, the applicant didn’t request a waiver from Sec V. m.  The Board did find the proposed application violates 3 of the above which includes #2 of the above listing.  At that time the Board didn’t grant a waiver for that.  I feel that if the Board grants this just on this issue, you are changing the driveway regulations. How fair is that? Also on B1 of the conditional approval, the applicant must submit a revised driveway configuration that is acceptable to Planning Board.  In Sec V. y, it states the driveway should follow natural terrain of the lot.  Obviously this is not being met without AOT.  If Board grants this, with this plan in place, it will effectively be changing the driveway regulations, and that will be litigated.”

SChicoine said, “This is not a flat driveway with few rises or dips but a driveway with 235 feet with slopes of 16%.  Z6B of the plans shows approximately 270’ with slopes of 12%.  If you are on Zephyr Lake Road and look up Gould Hill Road, nothing on that is 12%.  At the October 10, 2011 meeting, Mr. Stevens told the Board that approximately 500 cubic yards of material would be removed from the site which will be greater that what was proposed, thus will effectively be changing driveway. SChicoine handed to the Planning Board 4 letters summarizing his commentary.

Cirwin asked, “Can the applicant tell us what type of soil is on this slope?”  AJ DeSantis responded that he will get the information. CIrwin said, “We have highly erodible soils.”   MBorden said that 400-500 yard of material will be removed from the site.   MBorden stated, “The applicant has no idea what sort of conditions exist at the site? They don’t know what type of soil is there or the extent of bedrock/ledge.  They haven’t done any borings.  AJ DeSantis responded, “No, we’ve not done any borings. We based our plans on soils mapping.”  MBorden said what we have available for mapping of the soils, they have available to them as well.  RWimpory said, “So you can’t give a proper answer on soils.”

GAustin said if the Planning Board approves this, and then the applicant goes to the State, and State says they have to change this plan, then what is the recourse for the Planning Board?  BMarshall answered that we have to go with the state requirements.  MSteere said, “Once the State approves it, the Board can impose conditions.

GAustin asked, “How many turns or corners are there in this plan.  AJDeSantis said on Z5 as we leave the existing driveway, one left hand turn, then at the 2nd big sweep, and at the very top is a another curve.  Overall the plan has 3 turns.  

GAustin asked, “What are the slopes on those three turns?”  AJDeSantis said on Z6 and Z6a shows elevations with a 12% slope at 928’, a 12% slope at 978 elevation and at top elevation. GAustin said that the Board should review percentages  because our regulations said no turn over 30 degrees will be over 12%.    

SKnight, applicant, said, “I see a passing lane has been included. Where is it on the plan?”  AJDeSantis responded, “The passing lane is at the 980” mark on a slope of 12%.”  SKnight said, “Looking at driveway regulation Sec V 2. f, a passing area will be 24’ x 50’ length with a 5% slope.  Clearly the passing lane doesn’t meet the grade at 12%.  AJDesantis said it does look like a flat area, but does concur with SKnight’s analysis that the grade is above 5% as stated in our regulations in the passing lane.

EAnderson asked AJDeSantis what the slope is on the hill on the corner at the beginning of the driveway?  Is the slope over 35% at the edge of the driveway.”  It appears that the contours and the edge of the driveway are extremely close. Safety is my concern. It appears many areas within the construction zone on the edges of the driveway are at 39%.”  RWimpory asked, “Are there any guard rails?”  AJDeSantis responded, “There are none.”

SChicoine said, “Addressing the tree buffer, which is greatly affected by the latest set of plans.  On Z2,  the limits of cleared area and the buffer area look to be inaccurate.  A cleared area up to 50’ from SKnight’s property, shows the two lines inaccurately on the cleared buffer area.”  BMarshall said so you are saying that Z2 doesn’t match the previous documents.  “Yes,” responded SChicoine.

SChicoine said the applicant had an opportunity to appeal this condition of approval, and they didn’t.  But they are asking the Planning Board to change it now.  Sec V g. 6 of the Telecommunication Ordinance-buffer of dense tree growth that extends continuously for minimum distance of 150’ from the mount, a security barrier, or a designated clear area for access to equipment, whichever is greatest, and screens view of the facility in all directions.  The purpose of the buffer is to mitigate the visual impact of the facility from road and adjourning properties.  I want to remind the Planning Board that at the time of the balloon test, you did not consider the view from my property.” SChicoine submitted another letter summarizing his commentary.  

GAustin said the applicant is tweaking the application to get around the previously modified approval.  We are on revision #11.  So now, will revision #12 have a guardrail?  Then the next revision will have another point added.  So at what point is enough enough?  Where or what will end this, since clearly from day one, this application has not met the regulations?

BMarshall said, “I don’t have an answer to that question.  We are going to have to make a decision about this application, with a time limit on this. No member of this Board is not aware of the time and cost that has been put forth about this.”

CIrwin said, “I appreciate the fact that the applicant is showing a silt fence, but I don’t see where there are any long term erosion plans.  I am most concerned about, on Z6,  the spot where the large area of disturbance will be happening on a steep slope, with vegetation removed. If there is bedrock at the disturbance area, the runoff will be where?   In JStevens’ letter, the last point, states there will be no additional water runoff to abutters, I disagree.  The plans do not show the direction of water flow, which we require. I’d like to see that on future plans.  Is there a stone wall at the bottom of the driveway?  Yes, there is.  The plans show that they will be excavating right up to that spot. Having seen these plans, this new plan, looks like it’s involving more excavation and fundamentally changing the lot.  The runoff will affect the wetlands and the neighbors.  The direction of the water flow is to the east, and ultimately that water makes it way to Zephyr Lake.  If a fuel spill occurs on the big curves on the road, my fear is that the fuel will make its way into the water and wetlands.  I recommend to the Board that this is above and beyond what should be approve.”

BMarshall asked, “With the retention pond at the bottom of the hill to the east of the current driveway, how does the water get there?  AJDeSantis said the runoff will be diverted to retention pond and then through infliltration into the property.  BMarshall pointed out that the retention pond is east of the culvert at the bottom of the hill that directs its flow west. How will the water from the driveway ditches that is diverted to that culvert get to the retention basin, which is toward the east?  CIrwin commented the culvert as it is drawn doesn’t go with the natural flow of the land.  AJDeSantis said the retention pond was to catch the sheet flow of water.  

AWood said, “Looking at this, and the way the cuts and swales are set, where the hill is mostly bedrock,  I am worried about a fuel spill. With the hydrofracted bedrock in the hill, I am worried about a fuel spill.  My well is down hill to this driveway and any spill will make my house unlivable.”

GAustin asked if the retention pond has a non-permeable liner.  AJDeSantis will get this info for us.  GAustin said  “I was under impression that it wasn’t.”  

SKnight submitted a letter about the vegetative buffer to the Board. “I want to reiterate that we elected you, the Board, because we put out trust in you to protect us from development in this town which doesn’t meet our regulations. This project just doesn’t  work with the land as it is so steeply sloped.”  

EAnderson said, “I urge you to reject this plan”

JRenaud said, “I urge you the Board to reject application.”

SChicoine said, “Please reconsider noise issue. I’ve summarized this is in letter #4,” which he had handed to the Board.  

PRenaud said that he would like to check with Peterbough Fire Department to assure that the ambulance could get in there.  BMarshall said that he could check with LWhite about that.

CIrwin, “On Z2, why does it say on bottom of the sheet that the proposed 150’ vegetative buffer is subject to a landscape easement?”  JSpringer responded that is required by the ordinance, upon approval, to protect the buffer by landowner.

SChicoine made a comment about the process, “Don’t pass the buck.   You are the one to interpret the regulations, not JSpringer,  JStevens, DES.  It is the Board’s responsibility to make the decision.”  PRenaud also commented, “Don’t pass the buck to DES either.”

EAnderson asked, “After the last public hearing, there was a motion made by MSteere to reject the previous version of this plan.  This Board then agreed to consult with the town attorney to put together the wording involved for the rejection. Whatever happened to that?  

BMarshall said, “Once we were in receipt of this new information (Plats of 10/26/11 and Infinigy letter of 10/27/ 2011) that came from the 10/10 hearing, the public indicated that they wanted to have access to this new information in a public hearing.  As a result, on at the meeting on November 14, 2011, MSteere withdrew his motion and we decided to have a public hearing on12/12/11.  I have been involved with this Board since 2000, on and off. Never have we had so many public hearings for any application. If we have erred in this process, it has been in providing the kind of access that we have provided to the public.  Essentially, our hands are tied.  Any time a new idea comes up, we can’t deal with it until a public hearing is held.  We are now nearing the end of this process.”

BMarshall said, “One of the questions I want to ask AJDeSantis this evening is that we have this tremendous alteration in terrain because we have insisted on applying the driveway regulations as close to letter as we could get. We were warned of this alteration a year ago by JSpringer  He said that if we didn’t go with the steep, direct alternative, we would see a major terrain alteration which clearly has a major impact on the buffer.  I received an e-mail from JStevens today.  Have you been in communication with him today?”  AJDeSantis replied he had not.  BMarshall continued, “In an e-mail I sent him last week, I asked if he had any solution to buffer issue?”
 
GMorris asked if the public portion should be closed?

BMarshall said, “I want the public to hear this as and have a chance to comment as it is new information and I don’t want to create the need for another hearing.  JStevens suggested there may be some ways to plant hemlock trees to enhance and restore this buffer to some extent.  BMarshall commented that the 150’ buffer isn’t sacrosanct.  BMarshall asked the Board’s permission to enter the e-mail from JStevens into public record. The Board agreed.  

GAustin asked if the e-mail will be available to the public.  BMarshall said yes.

Of AJDeSantis,  BMarshall asked, “Where the public expressed serious concern about the buffer, from the abutters all around, will adding hemlocks bring the application closer to our regulations  AJDeSantis said he didn’t see that as an engineering concern.  The trees would be on the downhill side and that the trees would be in a well watered area.  He doesn’t see any reason why the trees shouldn’t be planted.

BMarshall then asked the public for their feelings about the negative impact on the vegetative buffer.  CIrwin said, “Yes the trees would be ok, but if it is bedrock, the hemlocks are not going to work.”

PRenaud commented that tree buffer is 150’ as set forth in our regulations and he feels like there are negotiations going on to get these conditions approved.  Both public and applicant accepted the 150’ buffer condition, and neither party appealed it.  EAnderson agrees with PRenaud’s position 100%.  

SKnight said, “My feeling is that 50’ is not 150’.  Also hemlock trees don’t get very tall, so I say no to the solution.”  SChicoine said, “I agree with SKnight.”

JRenaud said, “In researching Planning Board approvals statewide, I couldn’t find any situation where Planning Board approval conditions were changed.  So legally, you should not change the conditions of approval.”

GMorris said, “I would like to close the public hearing and only get from the applicant the information we need.  We gave them one year to come before us with a plan to meet our regulations.  They have come before us with four plans and I want to end this.”

KO’Connell said, “When it comes to this engineering plan here, we don’t have the information driving this plan and we need that information.  I want to air all the possibilities that they are going to be dealing with, such as ground measurements information, soil conditions, etc.

MSteere said, “If we aren’t going to garner any more information from the applicant,  we should close the public hearing.”  

9:47 pm MSteere motioned to close the public hearing.  GMorris seconded the motion.  Vote carried in favor.

9:48 Public Hearing closed.

GMorris said, “I would like to get the additional information that we requested and be sure this plan is what we are deliberating.  We will not be deliberating any other plans or revision of this plan.”

MSteere said. “We will only ask for clarification on this plan and will accept other plans”

RWimpory said we should put all our clarification questions in writing.  

JSpringer commented, “I share GMorris’s feelings on one hand. I know that we don’t want to be coming back any more times than we have to, but we have a year to fulfill the conditions.  In my letter to MSerge, (what many in town don’t believe and I can’t convince them otherwise)  I tried to communicate to him that we don’t want to be in a lawsuit.  We are trying to address all the issues before us.  We are coming to you with solutions to what you requested.  An access drive through a buffer zone without cutting trees? There’s no way to do it. That’s not my fault or my clients fault, but the ordinance is what we have to deal with.   I share your frustration, but this is a permitted use on that property.”

MSteere said, “I think the Planning Board wants to address this plan and if we reject this plan,  they still have the rest of a year from the date of conditional approval to come before us. If we reject it, it is rejected with cause.  Mr. Springer, what we are trying to do is get this in bedrock so we can be done with it.”

MBorden said, “We will never be able to come up with a real usable plan without knowing what the soil conditions are.  When you go for AOT permit, then you are going to have go up there and do test bores to know what the soils conditions are.  You cannot give us a plan until you know what those conditions are.  It’s all guess work.”

BMarshall asked, “Is it this Board’s understanding that if the Board were to reject this plan because it doesn’t meet the regulation, that they couldn’t take elements of this plan to use in another plan?”  GMorris said, “I’d like to see plans that meet our driveway regulations. I’m not talking about the buffer as that is a conundrum.  This driveway can’t be done without cutting down trees.”   

GMorris asked JSpringer, “Did we get a driveway that meets our driveway regulations?”  

JSpringer responded, “Yes, but then I am not an engineer.” JSpringer injected, “We’ve all identified a conundrum.  How do we solve that problem?  How do we do get an access road without taking down trees?  If you tell me how to do it, we will.  If that cannot be met, let’s put it on the record.  Tell me how we can meet that problem.”

GMorris responded, “Our job is not to tell them how to build this to meet our requirements.  It is our job is to make sure that they meet our requirements.”

JSpringer said, “That’s right, but it is the ordinance’s job for the applicant to be able to follow it.  And if it isn’t, then that is a real problem.”  

BMarshall suggested due to the late hour, the deliberations be postponed to our next meeting.  MSteere motioned to continue deliberations on 12/19 later in the meeting and suggested a meeting start time of 6:30 pm

10:16 pm MSteere motioned to adjourn.   JFletcher seconded the motion.  Vote unanimous.