Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
January 9, 2012
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, (arrived 7:50 p.m.) PRenaud, KO’Connell, MSteere, MBorden,
7:05 p.m. MSteere began reading the meeting minutes for December 19, 2011 and completed at 7:21 p.m. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made.
7:33 p.m. MSteere motioned to accept the December 19, 2011 meeting minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor of accepting the minutes.
7:35 p.m. Public Hearing opened,
BMarshall explained the purpose of the public hearing to review proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations. An attendance list was circulated to the audience for signatures.
BMarshall handed out copies of the proposed amendments to the audience.
Amendment #1: Proposed Amendment to the Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation and Education District 2012
CMREC zone proposed change is indicated in italics as to where it would appear in Sections III Districts. The changed would appear as Note #2. BMarshall asked KBaum if this is consistent with what was discussed on December 19, 2011. KBaum agreed it was. BMarshall explained to the audience why this was being changed. The new language ensures that in the event of a conflict between overlay and the underlying district, the overlay would prevail. The CMREC zone was created to enable them to have different dimensions and requirements and this change clarifies that.
MSteere commented, “If we get any other districts, we would have to add another note or create their own districts”. MSteere moved that the Amendment to go on the March 2012 ballot. PRenaud seconded. Vote in favor.
Amendment #2: Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section IV General Regulations and Restrictions
KO’Connell said this particular situation was brought up by Building Inspector due to landowner having storage trailers sitting next to property lines which impacted the sale of abutting properties. BMarshall also noted that a new definition for storage containers would be included in the definitions section. PRenaud asked if this permit could be potentially renewable indefinitely. KO’Connell said that it would be the Building Inspector’s call. MSteere moved that the Amendment to go to the March 2012 ballot. MBorden seconded. During discussion on the motion, JRenaud asked, “What is an ‘unregistered trailer’?” KO’Connell said it means any kind of trailer. MSteere restated his motion. MBorden seconded again. Vote in favor.
Amendment #3: Petitioned article by public (not the actual language of the petition) to Amend the Telecommunications Ordinance of the Zoning Ordinance Section V.C District regulations, to require a special exception by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for location in the General Residence District.
PRenaud feels it is important that construction of a cell tower in General Residence District be allowed only by special exception in this zoning regulation. As it currently exists, it is a disservice to residential property owners in this town. MSteere commented that this is an opportunity to limit cell tower cinstruction in unsuitable areas. This exception will enable another board to take a closer look at the proposal. MSteere motioned to support the proposed amendment to the March 2012 ballot. PRenaud seconded. JFletcher said, “By putting another process in place, it will be interesting to see how the town will vote on this. I don’t like having the Planning Board’s recommendation attached to it. I’d like to see this petition stand on its own.”
JRenaud said, “This restriction in the General Residence District was removed from the Telecommunications Ordinance two years ago, and I don’t remember any discussion as to why this was removed. As we know, it really backfired on us, and we’ve spent a year and a half on this current proposal, and this petition would be a step in the right direction requiring closer review of locations in this district.
PRenaud would like a fall meeting with the Zoning Board of Adjustment and to get their input as to what they want as special exception criteria. If this special exception was in place, there would have been less stress on this board with the current proposal. MSteere said the current 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower plan doesn’t fit this site. This special exception might have halted this process.
BMarshall asked JGryval if he had any comment. JGryval said, “As a private citizen, this is the time for a special exception to be enacted.” EAnderson said, “I’d like to see the town develop a policy on cell and wind towers, to have an expert come in a talk about how revenue from cell and towers from leases on town owner property would occur.”
MSteere repeated his motion to have the Planning Board support the adoption of this petition. PRenaud repeated his second. Vote in favor. BMarshall said that it would be listed, including the Planning Board’s recommendation for approval, with the other proposed changes.
Amendment #4: Groundwater Protection Ordinance:
BMarshall explained that 2 years ago the Conservation Committee and Planning Board applied for a grant, were accepted, and spent funds to work with SWRPC to help develop an ordinance for groundwater protection. He handed out a black and white map of the Town’s stratified aquifers showing areas in dark gray that would be affected by this ordinance. Some aquifers are in residential, some in industrial, etc areas.
He provided a handout of the highlights of the ordinance which included its purpose, boundaries of districts, definitions, permitted uses, prohibited uses, regulated uses, performance standards, pre-existing and nonconforming uses, exemptions, inspection and maintenance, relationship between state and local government and a summary of best management practices for groundwater protection, as recommended by DES. He explained said the language spelled out on the highlights comes directly from the ordinance. He noted that the Best Management Practices created in 2007, are current and no new legislation since 2007 affects these Best Management practices.
JRenaud asked about grandfathering, where is it? BMarshall explained it is in Section XI of the ordinance which mentions pre-existing non-conforming use.
CIrvin asked, “If you have someone who is operating something that is grandfathered and it to be sold, can the new owner keep the same business?” BMarshall responded,
it is non-transferable.” MSteere said, “Even though you are grandfathered for use, it’s a regulated use, with yearly inspections. Any change has to get a conditional use permit and you would have to come before the Planning Board for approval.”
EAnderson asked, “Does the map show the recharge areas in the stratified areas? You could have some activities in these areas that would affect the stratified areas.” BMarshall said that DES and SWRPC put these maps together and he isn’t sure where the recharge areas area. BMarshall said some areas that are lightly shaded are protected by conservation easements. MSteere said, “If we pass this ordinance, and if the feeling of the townspeople is to include the recharge areas, then we can do so. We can add to these to the ordinance in the future if need be.”
MSteere said, “If the public doesn’t have any more input, I motion that we move this on to the ballot.” MBorden seconded. Vote in favor. JFletcher, PRenaud, MBorden, MSteere voted in the affirmative. KO’Connell abstained.
8:30 p.m. Public Hearing Closed
8:31 p.m. Mail Received:
- Letter from Janet & Paul Renaud, re: Petition Article for zoning change to be placed on Town Ballot for Town Elections taking place on 3/13/11.
- Copy of signed petition
- Receipt for CK #1543 from Springer Law firm for 46 Zephyr Lake Rd Cell Tower Public Hearings on 10/10/11 and 12/12/11
- Copy of Legal Notice for Public Hearing for 1/9/12
- Copy of e-mail showing cost of legal notice for 1/9/12
- 2 Copies of newspaper articles about 46 Zephyr Lake Rd Cell Tower
- Invoice from SWRPC for $40 – map
- Invoice from SWRPC for $1500 for Master Plan Update per contract
BMarshall contacted LMurphy, SWRPC, and she will be attending the January 23, 2012 meeting to talk about process for the information gathering for the Master Plan. She will be asking the Board to identify things in old Master Plan that don’t apply any longer, things that the Board would like to elaborate on as well as such topics as economic development, town leased land for cell and/or wind towers. How do we want to go about providing more land for an industrial zone, via overlay and or own district? MSteere said, “If we don’t set something aside now, we won’t have any area for industrial development.” MSteere also suggested topics like another senior citizen housing development further out of town, transportation, high speed internet. KO’Connell
suggested looking at what type of industrial business we want to have in town.
BMarshall asked if February 27 meeting with the Sawmill Road businesses is when the Board still wants to meet. The Board agreed to keep that date. MSteere suggested that at the January 23rd meeting that the Board lay out an agenda with the three Sawmill businesses. BMarshall said he will send the letters to the businesses inviting them to the February 27 meeting.
BMarshall gave an update on lighting in the Town Parking lot down behind the Greenfield Meeting Place. DPW supervisor Murray dug out the drainage in the back of the building and discovered where the stream comes out from under the building. That was contributing to the flooding of the area. They redirected the flowage to the main drain behind the Harvester Market. In addition, they discovered a plugged drain over behind the Buchanan property that they cleared out. The water problem is taken care of for the time being. The DPW found a gray PVC pipe with a string, thinking it was a conduit for lighting. On further investigation they discovered there was no wire there and they contacted Underwood engineering for as-built drawings. Underwood engineering indicated there were none. The DPW will check the electrical panel to see if
there is an empty conduit for a line for the lighting.
PRenaud said with the adjustments to regulations, we discovered that we have a 911 ordinance and if you are coming in for a site plan review, something on the site plan review checklist should be listed.
MBorden said that Section V K Numbering of the driveway regulations covers 911. He read the regulations and commented it is already on the driveway permit checklist. BMarshall said, “Is it the feeling of the Board to not do anything for the site plan review checklist.” The general consensus was, “No, it’s already in the driveway checklist.”
8:56 p.m. MSteere motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote in favor.
| 
