Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Mike Steere
May 14, 2012
Members present: RWimpory; PRenaud; KO’Connell, JFletcher; MBorden; RMarshall; MSteere, Alternate
7:00 p.m. Minutes
JFletcher read the minutes of the April 23, 2012 meeting. Following a punctuation change, JFletcher moved to accept the minutes as amended. MSteere seconded. All in favor, the motion carried.
7:11 Mail
· PSNH Letter requesting a public hearing for tree cutting for a line extension on Cornwell Road and pole replacement on County Road.
· Notice of LGC Workshops
· NHDES Drinking Water newsletter
· Town of Jaffrey notice of Cell Tower application/hearing
· Building Permits for 2012 from Code Enforcement
· SWRPC Commission Highlights newsletter
· Planning Board Budget, YTD
· LGC Town and City Magazine
7:15 Town DPW Tree Trimming-Scenic Roads
The board has reviewed the final draft prepared by RMarshall after the April 23 meeting. As a result of a conversation earlier in the day with Grainier, RMarshall proposed the addition of the following sentence at the end of the draft: MSteere moved to add the following wording for consultation: “The DPW Supervisor is encouraged to consult with the Town Forester when questions about trimming/ cutting are encountered.” PRenaud seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried. The Board agreed that addition of that sentence at the bottom of the draft made sense. PRenaud stated that from research he has conducted, he felt that the best time to conduct the trimming was either during mid-summer or in the winter, contrary to a autumn recommendation heard in the public hearing. RMarshall will deliver this approval to
the Town Administrator and DPW Supervisor.
KO’Connell suggested that this discussion and others to date was further evidence that the Town may want to consider the adoption of a Tree Warden. Further discussion about controlling the development/management of scenic roads, issues that have been raised in recent public hearings, indicate that preservation of Scenic Roads needs to be included as a major objective in our coming Master Plan.
7:32 Master Plan Survey
MSteere and PRenaud reviewed the results of their work processing the written and electronic versions of the Master Plan Survey. Discussion of each question followed as Board members reviewed both the raw data compiled and the graphs of that data. Due to the conflicting nature of some of the questions on the surveys, it was felt that for the future:
· the Board had to be careful that each question asked only one thing
· more time was needed to assure that both forms were consistent.
· language of the questions needed to be clearer to reduce misinterpretation.
· strategies should be developed to make tabulation/processing quicker and easier.
Master Plan Roundtable Results
RMarshall presented the Roundtable results. He called attention to the fact that two of the top three priorities of participants were the same in all three teams, though they may be in different sequence:
· 1. Greenfield will always be a bedroom community to surrounding economic centers. We should focus on protecting the quality of life in a quiet, rural community.
· 10. Greenfield must invest in community infrastructure that has been neglected for some time including community transportation (roads), public facilities (Meeting House, Town Offices, DPW facilities and Library).
It was clear to all groups that we have to create various strategies to generate the revenue needed to accomplish these tasks.
RMarshall noted to members that this raw data, in addition to Photo Shoot data that she already has, has been provided to Lisa Murphy at SWRPC and the next steps in the process will be from her office.
8:05 Dumas Home Based Business
Final signing of the Dumas Home Based Business application was presented. Despite the fact that the finding of the Board was that a formal application was not required, the Board agreed that the $10 application fee applied in this and all similar applications.
K’O’Connell asked if we had a database of home-based businesses. RMarshall said he had begun the process several years ago but that it was minimal. He had used the back of the Greenfield Spirit and information that he knew of but that was the extent of the list. RMarshall asked what triggered the submission of a Site Plan Review application? He will ask PHopkins to come in on June 11 to discuss this issue.
8:20 Mitchell Subdivision Sawmill Road
Gene Mitchell came before the Board to discuss changes in his subdivision from the construction of a Fire Pond to the construction of a cistern. Since this was new information on his subdivision, the Board felt that we should schedule a public hearing on his amended subdivision application. The Board advised him that he will need to complete a new abutters list for proper notification and he will need to create a new page showing the details of cistern construction. He was asked to include a signature block ,including date ,for the Fire Chief to indicate his review and approval of the plan. The public hearing will be scheduled for June 11, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
8:40 Planning Board, Code Enforcement Officer responsibilities
Todd Smith asked the Planning Board a number of questions about the issuance of building permits. He wanted to know who was responsible for the issuance of a building permit on a lot that is not correctly recorded? His reference was to a lot on Cornwell Road that abuts his land. He said this was the second time in Greenfield that he has had a problem with lot lines being incorrect.
TSmith then asked a number of other questions. He wanted to know if and when the Town or its agent could require a survey? Could the town could require a survey whenever a building was to be constructed on a piece of land?
RWimpory said the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) can issue a building permit if, in his judgment, he has enough information to make a decision on the accuracy of the layout. If someone wanted to build a home in the middle of a 250 acre parcel, obviously a survey was unnecessary. Common sense had to be used in each individual case. RWimpory stated that it is his understanding that a survey is being conducted to determine the accuracy of the lot in question.
TSmith then asked if the lot in question is a lot of record? Discussion ensued about how this lot was “discovered” as a result of three different subdivisions in recent years. The most recent subdivision of the Belmore land on Cornwell Road resulted in the “creation” of this lot since there was a small parcel left from the Belmore subdivision that did not include this lot. The current owner has a deed for this property that is from the late 1800’s that identifies the property that is essentially square in shape, being over 3 acres in size. The recent subdivisions result in a triangular shaped piece of property approximately 1.7 acres in size. He wanted to know which was correct? He is concerned that the Town has issued a building permit without knowing where the boundary line is and is concerned that development
on that parcel might encroach on the setbacks or even on his land.
Further discussion raised the question about whether or not this is a lot of record? If the deed of the late 1800’s is used, which states that the property is more than 3 acres in size, it would be a lot of record that could be built on provided it met setback requirements, even though it would not be of the size required (1.7 acres) by the more recent Zoning ordinance. If the deed of record was created more recently, several years ago, after the Belmore subdivision, it would be a non-conforming lot and would not be buildable because it didn’t conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirement of a minimum of 2 acres. The owner would need to get a variance from the ZBA in order to build.
TSmith noted that there might be many cases in town, two of which have now happened to him (one on Cornwell Road and one on his Forest Road property) where the deeds and the actual surveys that have been done would be in conflict. He wanted to know how the Town would deal with this problem. RMarshall said that as a result of this discussion it appears that the Town has a process: The Code Enforcement Officer determines if this lot is a lot of record and whether or not there is enough land to meet requirements of the zoning Ordinance. When he has determined this to his satisfaction, he may issue a Building Permit. His action is subject to appeal to his supervisors, the Board of Selectmen. Though this process may have been “a little messy” in this case due to the circumstances of timing and the CEO being on vacation, the Planning
Board felt that the process was done correctly and this is the process that should adequately address the issue.
The Planning Board further felt that the individual abutters always have the recourse of civil action to rectify what they perceive to be a violation of their property rights.
RMarshall volunteered to call PHopkins to ask a number of questions about this issue. He will ask:
1. Is this a lot of record and if it is, what deed is registered?
2. When this deed was recorded, did it meet the requirements of land use then in effect?
3. How do we currently assure that parcels of land meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
4. If this question is not resolved, is it prudent to issue a cease and desist order to protect the homeowner in question?
RMarshall will call RWimpory and TSmith in the morning to inform them of the results of the call.
10:23 Adjournment
MSteere moved to adjourn, MBorden seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried.
| 
