Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
December 19, 2011
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MSteere, MBorden, RWimpory, GMorris
6:30 pm MSteere began reading the 12/12/11 meeting minutes with GMorris reading for a few pages, and then MSteere finished. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. Substantive changes were made on Line 231, 235, and 237. See amended December 12, 2011 meeting minutes for changes.
7:20 pm Review of Sec IV Q. Unregistered trailers & Storage containers proposal for Zoning Ordinance.
BMarshall asked if the Board should a have definition of dumpster in the regulations. KO’Connell said it may already be defined in building codes. MSteere feels the ordinance is fine, but wants to check the definition for the storage container to see if it includes dumpsters. GMorris said he checked and a dumpster definition is not in zoning ordinance. BMarshall asked KO’Connell to draft a definition of storage container, to exclude dumpster and to get the draft to BMarshall for the January 9, 2012 meeting.
7:24 pm Report for Town Report Draft
BMarshall handed the draft of the Planning Board’s town report for the Board’s perusal. The draft will be discussed later in the meeting.
Receipts for Public Hearings
A check, #001543, was received from JSpringer in the amount of $491.30 for payment of the certifieds sent and newspaper ads placed for December 12 & October 10, 2011 public hearings held.
7:26 pm Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation and Education Center District Zoning ordinance review.
Kevin Baum representing CMRC presented potential conflicts with our Zoning ordinance. The general concept of last year’s amendment was to create the new district (CMREC) to better reflect the institutional uses in that area added as an overlay district and not a stand alone. He noted that under Section III Districts, the language of the ordinance says whenever a conflict occurs between the overlay and the underlying district (in this case the General Residence District) that the conditions of the underlying district would apply. This contradicts the intent of the CMREC district which was to enable different development options. After general discussion and clarification on RSA 676.14 read by PRenaud, the Board voted to include the following language in the Public Hearing scheduled for January 9,
2012.
“Note: In 2011, the voters of the Town of Greenfield voted to create a new Special Purpose District called the Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation and Education District. When conflicts emerge between this district and underlying General Resident District, the use regulations and dimensional requirements of the Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation and Education District shall apply.”
Vote taken as follows: JFletcher, PRenaud,MSteere, MBorden, affirmed in positive KO’Connell, opposed, RWimpory, abstained. (KO’Connell feels there is an inherent conflict with overlay district and would like to see the CMREC its own district.)
8:01 pm 46 Zephyr Lake Rd Cell Tower deliberations
PRenaud recused himself and asked permission to record the deliberations. BMarshall appointed GMorris to sit in for PRenaud.
BMarshall asked the Board, “Where would you like to go with this discussion?
JFletcher said, “I would like to make a motion to reject the proposal because it does not meet the conditional approval of May 23, 2011. MSteere seconded.
Discussion on the motion:
JFletcher said, “The proposal doesn’t meet the 150’ dense tree buffer, specifically. I am not worried about the approach to the driveway. I’m more worried about the side that is closest to SKnight’s property. The tree buffer doesn’t meet 150’ condition, especially the side that is closest to west side abutter’s property. It is clear that in this particular situation, the 150’ tree buffer was meant to protect the neighbor. The Telecommunications Ordinance, Section V G (page 27) says “enhancements are made on the basis of
conservation of opportunities to maintain community scale, e.g. buffering areas and low-lying buildings should not be compromised so as to start a trend away from the existing community scale.” Also under Section V G 1 Visibility under 1 b 2 – “Enhancements are measured on the basis of: amount and type of landscaping and/or natural vegetation” – clearly the clear cut at the top of the hill and absence of the buffer zone do not meet our requirements to maintain community scale and under 1 c 2- “Visibility focuses on protecting, continuing and enhancing the existing environment” - this clearly does not protect the environment.
Sec Y – “Driveway should follow the natural terrain and cuts or fills should be minimized.” A major disturbance is being created on this hill.
KO’Connell said, “If we are going to deny, we need to tell them specifically why you are denying and list it all.”
GMorris said, “CIrvin brought up a lot of good information, and thought about it and what the true water flow off hill will be, what will happen. They need to maintain natural flow of water and in doing this extent of work, natural flow is gone. Without having water courses on these plans, we can’t make any decision.
MSteere brought up SKnight’s comment about the passing zone with a 12% slope area. The driveway regulation Sec 5 f.1 states the slope has to be 5% or less.
MSteere said, “This is one of the things that really bothers me. I don’t think any of us are engineers, not civil engineers, absolutely out of my league. We should consider having an engineering firm of our hire, at cost to applicant, review these drawings. If we ever went further with this, we need the bar higher, get an engineer, to verify these plans.
RWimpory said, “The passing lane is in a 12% area which is no way near the 5%”
MBorden said, “As I said in the last meeting, the fact that in order to get their AOT permit, they are going have to find out what the soils conditions are to put in the driveway. So the reality is if they run into bedrock up there, they are going to need to blast that whole road, in order to build it. We just have no idea what is going to happen on that hill. We have no idea what the conditions are on the hill. Even though we have a proposed driveway, we have no idea what the soils are.”
KO”Connell said, “We are discussing cuts and fills, and discussing how many trees are going to be cut down to get up there and then find there is bedrock. If bedrock is there, the water flow will change and that will change the proposed slopes, cuts and fill.”
GMorris said, “The Sawmill Road site was approved quickly with one restriction which was to get a special exception for not to adhering the buffer due to the unique features of that location-a grassy open area. It’s not that we haven’t approved these applications in the past. Also that site used an existing driveway. This is a case where the ordinance isn’t preventing this, but the unique conditions of the site are.
MSteere said, “Even though this is permitted use, the site just isn’t feasible.”
RWimpory said, “How can you base a decision if the proper information isn’t available to you.
KO’Connell said, “If the driveway can be put in at those elevations, is that in compliance with our regulations? Also we don’t have the information that we need, so how can we make a decision?”
GMorris said, “A third point is the lack of information on water and soil erosion on the plan.”
BMarshall said, “Upon reflection I would like to make some comments. I won’t vote unless a tie happens. First of all, I want us to be cognizant of the fact that we are not required to adhere to 150’ buffer. The ordinance says the Planning Board shall have the authority to decrease, relocate or alter the required buffer based on site conditions. (Page 28 – under Section V G f – Camouflage for Ground Mounted Facilities.) I wanted to state that because we understand that you can’t have 150’ buffer and get to the tower without a road. Having said that, I don’t want us to be tied up by the 150’ tree buffer condition. We can be flexible enough to accommodate conditions. But on further reflection, I have tried to do everything that was necessary
as both an alternate and chair to make sure we provided a fair process for all parties concerned: from the perspective of the landowner, the applicant, and the public in general to be abiding by the ordinance. As I listen to all, what is beginning to emerge in my mind is that the ‘whole’ here is greater than the sum of its parts. We may be in the difficult situation in which the applicant will comply with as much of the ordinance as possible, and yet in our own minds, we will feel that this is not the right thing for this location. I’ve heard two or three people say that tonight.
Infinigy has been genuine in complying with our ordinance, but in doing so what they have created is a disaster on this lot. It is a disaster, in terms of its impact. From our Master Plan…”we need to ensure that telecommunications facilities have the least possible visual and environmental impact while providing adequate opportunities for these facilities.” GMorris’ comment about Sawmill Road cell tower demonstrates that we have provided the opportunity in appropriate places, but still this lot is not in the best interest of the community. Visual impact, runoff, the potential problems with the aquifer. It may be the right thing in terms of the parts of the ordinance, but upon reflection on the whole, it is the wrong thing for this site. Compliance with the ordinance will effectively destroy
large portions of the lot. The driveway crosses the entire lot, changing the essential character of the neighborhood. The fact that you have to get an AOT from the State tells me this is wrong for this site. I have reluctantly reached a point in my mind, while trying to make sure all parties have fair process in allowing this cell tower on this property, that this is the wrong place.”
KO’Connell said if we should reject this motion it should on the current proposal and the applicant should know exactly why, such as lack of information.
BMarshall said, “We are not rejecting the application, but the current proposal because there are flaws in the current proposal, such as the driveway, flows, soil conditions, noise levels. The new design hasn’t had noise studies done and with this much open space, I feel that the openness will have a significant effect on those levels. The noise level that was approved was done with a wholly forested area. Now, with the openness of this lot, those noise levels are effectively thrown out the window. To open up half of the hillside, the impact of the buffer on noise is gone.”
RWimpory said, I would hate to see half of this hill destroyed, and then find out that the noise regulation can’t be met. I am all for cell towers, but not on that piece of property.
KO’Connell motioned to move the question. MBorden seconded. The vote to move the question was unanimous in favor.
At this time, SRossi read to the Planning Board the motion made by JFletcher and the list of conditions not met.
JFletcher restated his motion:
I move to deny the October 26, 2011 proposal from Florida Tower Partners and Infingy Engineering as it does not meet the May 23, 2011 conditional approval requirements. MSteere seconded the motion.
Listed are the conditions not met on this proposal:
ZONING ORDINANCES:
- In the ordinance Section V G 1 f (page 27) of telecommunications ordinance - enhancements are made on the basis of conservation of opportunities to maintain community scale, e.g. buffering areas and low-lying buildings should not be compromised so as to start a trend away from the existing community scale. He said the tree buffer doesn’t meet 150’ condition, especially the west side that is closest to abutter’s property. It is clear that in this particular situation, the 150’ tree buffer was to protect the neighbor.
- Section V G 1 Visibility
Under 1 b 2 - Enhancements are measured on the basis of:
Amount and type of landscaping and/or natural vegetation – clearly the clear cut at the top of the hill and absence of the buffer zone do not meet our requirements to maintain community scale.
Under 1 c 2- Visibility focuses on protecting, continuing and enhancing the existing environment - this clearly does not protect the environment.
DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS:
- Sec V Driveway Standards
- Under F 2 driveways longer than a 1,000 feet must include a passing area at least every 800’, exclusive of the required turnout in (1) above or turnaround in (3) passing below. The grade along the entire length of the passing area must not exceed 5%. The passing lane looks flat according to AJ DeSantis, but has a 12% grade. This clearly does not meet our requirements.
- Sec Y - Driveway should follow the natural terrain and cuts or fills should be minimized. A major disturbance is being created on this hill.
- Lack of water flows and erosion information on the plans.
- Lack of soils information.
8:42 pm BMarshall called for a vote. Vote was unanimous to reject the current proposal before the Board.
MSteere motioned to close deliberations. JFletcher seconded. Vote unanimous. GMorris returned to alternate position and PRenaud re-joined the Board.
9:00 pm Proposed Zoning Ordinance Changes
BMarshall introduced the final draft of the Groundwater Protection Ordinance. PRigord from DES advised to include the definition of seasonal high water table in the ordinance, which has been done.
MSteere said, “As the ordinance is printed, it is ready to go. PRenaud agreed. The Ordinance will be presented at the January 9, 2012 hearing.
BMarshall said the following changes will be posted for the Public Hearing on the Zoning Ordinance changes on the January 9, 2012:
- Groundwater Protection Ordinance,
- A public Petition calling for an amendment to Section V C 1 of the Telecommunications/Personal Wireless Service Facilities requiring a special exception from the ZBA for Cell Tower construction in the General Residence District.
- Section IV, General Regulations and Restrictions - Unregistered Trailers and Storage Containers.
- CMREC Amendment
PRenaud then proposed discussion of a similar amendment to that being petitioned by the public, but including conditions for a Special Exception and read them to the Board. Any co-locating would be exempt of this special exception.
MSteere feels the criteria suggested were too restrictive. PRenaud responded that if petitioned article passed, then, with input from ZBA in how to word criteria, the amendment could be added next year.
Discusssions with Local Businesses
BMarshall presented a draft of a letter to American Steel, New England Forest Products and McGrath Lumber company Re: Sawmill Road industrial location. He asked the Board if the substance of the letter was what we want to convey to the businesses involved. MSteere said, “We should ask them what they want and how to help promote growth and development.” The Board approved of the drafts. The letters will be sent out in January.
Town Report Draft
The Board approved of the draft for the Town Report presented earlier in the meeting.
9:40 pm Mail Rec’d:
- Returned certified letter for Leonard & Coreen Webb and Alvin Hanson
- Current Town Officials & Committees 2011 List
- Greenfield Building Permits 2011 Y-T-D
- A Petition for Zoning Amendment for Section V.C.1
- Town Meeting Time Lines
- Letter from CDumas re: procedural actions by the Board
9:43 pm MBorden motioned to adjourned. MSteere seconded. Vote unanimous.
| 
