Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
August 13, 2012
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MBorden, RWimpory, SChicoine, MSteere (Alt)
7:04 p.m. Minutes MSteere began reading the July 23 meeting minutes. Minor spelling and word additions were done. No substantive changes were made. MBorden motioned to accept the minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded. Motion carried.
7:09 p.m. General Discussion RMarshall informed the Board that he talked with the Ledger/Transcript about the previous rate of $10.87 for advertising and the discount was reduced to $9.25.
RMarshall also spoke to PHopkins about the groundwater inspection fee. PHopkins feels the rate of $50 cover his costs for his time. KO’Connell motioned to change the groundwater inspection fee from $25 to $50. JFletcher seconded the motion. Motion carried in favor.
JFletcher suggested that on our agendas the title ‘Old Business’ shouldn’t have a time listed as some discussions go beyond the time allowed. ‘Old Business’ will be listed without times on the agenda.
7: 25 p.m. Mail received:
1. DES Letter from Subsurface Systems Bureau re: Application for Individual Seweage Disposal Systems, Muzzy Hill Rd, R1 1-2 Lot C?
2. Postcard from Cartographic Associates introducing Query Manager Onine
3. Return certified for Sawmill Road Trust
4. The Source-DES Drinking water newsletter
5. Current town officials & committees list dated 8/7/12
6. Invoice Upton & Hatfield: AT&T Cell tower, Mitchell $136.00
7. Ledger Transcript Invoice PB total $59.22
7:31 p.m. Public Hearing-Piscataquog River Regional Conservation Management Plan and Watershed Plan
RMarshall reviewed the public hearing rules with the public. He stated the hearing is to review conservation plan and the river plan associated with it. A clipboard was passed around for the public to sign. He then asked in any members needed to recuse themselves. None did.
JRenaud commented that she was involved with the watershed protection project in assessing culverts. It would be awesome to adopt this plan as Rand Brook feeds into the Piscataquog. Adopting this will show how dedicated the town is in keeping a water supply clear.
MSteere said that the Board should adopt the plan as advisory to Master Plan to keep a water supply clean.
CIrvin stated ConCom did see a summary of this early on and supported the plan. ConCom is supportive of anything that is going to protect our waterways. SChoicine commented there are two land management documents on the SNHPC website. LMurphy explain the Co-Occurrence Model involves soil surveys, pinpoints which areas have what type of soil along with a high quality map showing the significant and importance of soils along the watershed.
There being no further public input, the public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:38 p.m. RM explained to the audience that the Board would enter a deliberative session where no additional information will be received, but the Board reserved the opportunity to ask questions of the public.
PRenaud commented, “If we adopt one or both of these plans tonight, where will it go in the Master Plan?” RMarshall stated that it was already discussed earlier that it would be added where it is now located in the Master Plan.
KO’Connell asked if we were attaching an external document to Master Plan as an update or a revision. LMurphy explained the watershed document is a revision and the land conservation plan is an update. KO’Connell said to make sure that what we adopt to be listed as “Advisory” in the Master Plan.
SChicoine is concerned about how it is adopted? RWimpory said the “advisory” will bring to the attention of the Planning Board that any time a major change is done in community, this is a component and is “advisory” and not a legal regulation of the town.
PRenaud said the River Management Plan Update would only pertain to the Rand Brook and the couple of wetlands on Route 136 and the Old Francestown Road. He said there should be two separate motions for these two documents.
RMarshall asked PRenaud, “Where you worked on this project, should you recuse yourself? PRenaud said, “No, there is no conflict.”
MSteere agreed that the documents, to be clear, should be listed as “advisory” in the Master Plan. He said, “When looking at anything in this area, it will be used as a guide in our decision making.”
SChicoine said the Piscataquog Conservation Plan is a very detailed document with model language for restrictions included . “We did a two page Vision Statement, and these two documents are very extensive and we should be very careful how we adopt this.”
RMarshall asked whether or not to append the documents as advisory instruments only. MSteere advised to adopt as Planning Board ‘advisory’ documents and list it as such in the Master Plan.
JFletcher said if we adopt it, we indicate we are interested in protecting the land and they give us more ammunition when land does go into conservation status. RMarshall agreed it’s a source of information that will help us in making decisions.
A 8:05 p.m. KO’Connell motioned to table discussion until after next public hearing. PRenaud seconded. Motion carried in favor.
8:06 p.m. Public Hearing -Master Plan Vision Statement
RMarshall reviewed the public hearing rules with the public. .A clipboard was passed around for the public to sign. He commented that a copy of the Vision Statement had been printed in the “Greenfield Spirit” and had been available on the town website.
RMarshall told public this is third Vision Statement draft. He asked if there are any substantial changes that the public want suggested? MSteere said this draft is much improved from the original one.
JRenaud commented, “A lot of work went into this. It covers all the bases and based on my interaction with the town folks, it really hits the mark. It shows a great balance in keeping town rural, but attracting business. I hope the Planning Board adopts this statement.”
There being no further comments from the public, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
8:16 p.m. Deliberations.
MBorden said, “It looks just like what we talked about.” JFletcher suggested several minor edits. PRenaud motioned to adopt the Vision Statement of the Master Plan with Fletcher’s changes as amended. KO’Connell seconded. Motion carried in favor.
8:18 p.m. Piscataquog River Regional Conservation Management Plan and Watershed Plan Deliberations-Continued.
RMarshall asked, “Are we at place where we can reach a decision on the Piscataquog documents. KO’Connell and MSteere said they’d like to adopt as an ‘advisory report’ to the Master Plan, the Piscataquog River Management Plan Update 2010
SChicoine motioned to close the debate. RWimpory seconded. Motion carried in favor. JFletcher motioned to adopt the Piscataquog River Management Plan, update 2010, as an advisory appendix to Master Plan. SChicoine seconded. Affirmative Votes: MSteere, JFletcher, PRenaud, SChicoine, MBorden. Negative votes: RWimpory and KO’Connell. Motion carried in favor.
PRenaud motioned to adopt the Piscataquog River Watershed Land Conservation Plan as an advisory appendix to Master Plan with latest date provided by SNHP. JFletcher seconded. Affirmative votes: JFletcher, PRenaud. Negative votes: KO’Connell, MBorden, RWimpory, SChicoine. Motion defeated.
8:38 p.m. 5 minute recess
8:41 pm Old Business: 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application. RMarshall asked if any members needed to recuse themselves. PRenaud and SChicoine recused themselves and joined the audience. MSteere then was asked to sit in for PRenaud.
RMarshall advised there has been no communications from the applicant, the lawyer or the engineers since December 19, 2011. The one year anniversary has passed, May 23, 2012. He had sent them a letter on June 12, 2012 informing them that the Conditional approval had expired. There has been no response. He offered to read the conditional approval, but the Planning said there was no need to. He then asked what action the Board would like to take? MSteere suggested the Planning Board write letter to the attorney, J. Springer, Infinigy Engineering, and the applicant, Florida Tower Partners, advising that the current application has been denied. MBorden seconded. Members voting: MSteere, RWimpory, KO’Connell, MBorden, and JFletcher. Motion carried in favor.
8:48 p.m. Sawmill Estates
RMarshall asked, “If any member needed to recuse himself.” KO’Connell recused himself and joined the audience. MSteere sat in for KO’Connell and PRenaud and SChicoine rejoined the Board.
RMarshall advised that he had been in communication with GMitchell, Sawmill Estates, and with Town Counsel. Counsel advised:
1. On Page 3 of the Subdivision Regulation, Section III, G. Conditional Approval “If application has not complied with the conditions of approval within six months,”…(in this case over two years since the court disposition)…the approval is considered null and void and the applicant must submit a new subdivision application, except however that the applicant may submit a written request for an addition six months extension.”
2. Cannot amend a plan that has not become final.
3. We would be setting a bad precedent by leaving open a case for an extended period of time without action.
RMarshall asked GMitchell how he felt about the Board’s comments and how he wanted proceed? GMitchell said it doesn’t matter. RMarshall said it appears that a new application should be submitted. GMitchell should check new ordinances that had been legislated since his old application for any zoning changes, include existing sheets for the subdivision and include a new sheet showing cistern plans.
GMitchell said the only change is a page showing a cistern, how it works and the State of NH criteria are met. The topography of land showing cistern is available. All the permits are up to date. The original application has gone from a fire pond to a cistern. He isn’t in a rush as the land isn’t going to be sold, not in this economy. RMarshall stated that an abutter gave the Board a tear sheet listing the subdivision as if it was approved. GMitchell said that is not true; only one lot is for sale.
PRenaud motioned to deny original subdivision application on citing Subdivision regulation Section III G. MSteere seconded. Motion carried in favor.
PRenaud said a new application requires Board to review any new zoning ordinances and a hearing needs to be scheduled for a design review. RMarshall scheduled September 10 at 7:30 p.m. for design review of the new Sawmill Estate application. GMitchell will submit a list of abutters, mailing labels, and check to cover mailing and advertising costs. RMarshall said costs have accrued and I will e-mail a total to you as well as confirming the design review meeting date and time, September 10 at 7:30 p.m.
9:12 p.m. PRenaud said when denying the cell application, RMarshall should cite RSA 676:3 paragraph 1 to make sure reasons for denial are in letter to lawyer, applicant and engineers. RMarshall said that he will draft the letter and e-mail it to the Planning Board for approval before he sends it out.
9:15 p.m. Adjournment MSteere motioned to adjourn. JFletcher seconded. Motion carried in favor.
| 
