Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
August 27, 2012
Members present: RMarshall, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MBorden, SChicoine
7:05 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the August 13, 2012 meeting minutes. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. Three substantive changes were made:
Line 64: after the word update, insert the following sentence: “KO’Connell said he didn’t think this should be a part of the Master Plan, but it should be adopted as a Planning Board Report”.
Line 76: After the word conflict, insert the following: “Since this is not a judicial process, there is no need for anyone to recuse themselves.”
Line 182: After the word requires, insert “…the applicant to review any new zoning ordinances and a hearing could be scheduled for design review. GMitchell submitted a written request for a design review.”
Mail received:
2012 Municipal Law Lecture Series
NH Community Planning Grant Signed Contract
Abutter list for Sawmill Estates
7:39 p.m. Crotched Mountain Forest Legacy Conservation Easement
Michael Redmond, from CMRC came in to ask for support from the Planning Board for the Forest Legacy Conservation Project. MRedmond explained that CMRC applied in 2008 for the funds associated with this project to conserve 1200 acres of the campus. This project will help maintain the rural quality of town and supports all areas that are in the Master Plan vision. The State of NH would own the easement on a piece of CMRC where development of the property wouldn’t occur. A delay in approval has given CMRC time to get more support when presenting to the state committee approving the grant. CMRC has been met with the towns of Bennington and Francestown Selectboards and Conservation Committees and those Boards will be writing letters of support.
He explained the values of this project:
1. Economic value- guarantees recreation use forever, promotes tourism. Trails that have been
developed have attracted people from all over the country.
2. Largest employer in town (67 residents from Greenfield are employed at CMRC)
3. Campus is heated by biomass and this project will keep going.
4. Environmentally, protects the groundwaters as CMRC sits on the Piscataquog and
Contoocook River watersheds.
5. Protects the property from development.
6. CMRC has a strong relationship with town:
-Aquatic center provides low cost to town residents for use.
-During recent ice storm, we provided, shelter, showers, and meals.
-Supports the school, Library, Fire Department and Rescue .
-Makes contributions to local charities.
CIrvin, Conservation Commission Chairman, said, “Our committee fully supports this easement. The committee sees the economic value of this project which is in line with what the town wants. It is a very large, continuous land mass and animals need a large area to grow. The Commission will be writing a letter in support.” MBorden and PRenaud voiced their support of the CMRC Forest Legacy project. KO’Connell asked “Are the funds distributed by the state? Is state aware that they are to use funds for the Forest Legacy project?” MRedmond responded, “Yes, and CMRC will remind the state of such.” He voiced his appreciation for all that the town has done for CMRC.
RMarshall will draft a letter in support of this conservation easement. He will circulate to the Planning Board, and will get it to CMRC, who will forward to the state.
8:00 p.m. Master Plan-Land Use Section
LMurphy, SWRPC She is now working on the Land Use Section update. The existing Master Plan has a pullout map showing development constraints. She presented a new map she is working on and sought input.
Planning Board suggestions:
-Make roads darker so they can be used as a point of reference.
-Show slopes of 15%
-Make conservation lands uniform in color.
-Include class 6 roads on map and they are a development constraint
LMurphy will e-mail revised map and RMarshall will forward via e-mail to Planning Board for review. She had some questions from the text on Pages 77 thru 80.
Pg 77
Government and Institutional - add Plowshare Farm, Brantwood Camp, CMRC, Barbara Harris Center, Wapack Mountain Wildlife Refugee
Agricultural – Planning Board commented that this is a shrinking land use and gave SRobertson’s farm as an example.
Pg 78
Transportation Systems - remove the word telecommuting and insert ‘internet infrastructure.’
Pg 79
A Brief History – RMarshall will forward to LMurphy facts about the railroad that was a major part of Greenfield.
Pg 80
Greenfield’s Land Use – LMurphy will check on the number of acres which are currently devoted to farming.
9:00 p.m. Greenfield Community Planning Grant –
LMurphy handed out the task and budget schedule for review by the Board. She will be cross referencing subdivision, site plan and zoning regulations and went over each task. RMarshall commented, “All of these tasks need to be done by next February for town meeting in March. We will need to get our ordinances in line so we are ready for round 2 for the grant process. We need to consult with the public so that we can go forward with what the public wants.”
LMurphy said, “Is there anything on land use documents that send up red flags or challenges that the Board can see? Are there any regulations or ordinances with wording that is awkward?” MBorden said, “We try to work through those issues as they come up.”
9:11 p.m. Williams-PCC-Minor Subdivision
RMarshall read Preliminary Conceptual Consultation guidelines. DTuomala, Monadnock Survey, was in the audience.
WWilliams explained that he wants to cut 4 acres out of his land and give to his son. The proposed 4 acre plot has 350’ frontage as required by town regulations. Access to new lot is via the Muzzey Hill Road. The land is flat and a perk test was done. Lot is not near any wetlands.
RMarshall said this is minor subdivision that is creating two lots and suggested going through checklist. DTuomala said the driveway permit is the last piece to completing the process. KO’Connell asked if there was a driveway signature block on plat. DTuomala said, “No, but she will see that the signature block for the driveway permit is added to and assures that the plat is in agreement with permit.”
WMilliams said, “Who signs the driveway permit?” RMarshall and MBorden advised to get a new permit signed by the current DPW supervisor.
MBorden asked, “Was a test pit done? If so, where is this information?” DTuomala said, “We haven’t received the information back from the State yet.” DTuomala commented, “We will put the info on the plat when we receive it. Also the area for the location of the septic system and well is large, but does the Board want the septic and well of the house to be on the plat?” RMarshall replied, “Yes.” DTuomala said PHopkins used to sign the plats, does he still do it? MBorden and RMarshall replied, “No.”
RMarshall asked for soil data. DTuomala said, “Yes, it’s on the second sheet. Granite markers will be placed before we sign the mylars.” WWilliams said, “It looks like I’ve met all the items on the application. So the labels will come in tomorrow.” RMarshall explained the fee structure as follows: application fee $200, per lot fee ($50) $100, LCHIP fee $25, abutter notification fee $80. He also explained that recording fees, application fee, approval and registry fees are to be paid by one check to town of Greenfield. A separate check will made out to Hillsboro County treasurer for the LCHIP fee. RMarshall said, “This looks good, but can’t anticipate what an abutter will say.”
9:36 p.m. Monadnock Survey, Miner Family Major Subdivision
DTuomala, VP, Monadnock Survey, Inc commented that these plans were presented a few years ago when Dr. Miner was still alive. He wanted this completed before he passed. Now, the heirs want to go forward with subdivision. KO’Connell recalled that when we discussed this earlier, because of the size of the lots, the Planning Board said that two acres of developable area sections should be identified. Any building outside of those areas would have to come back to the Board for approval. The Town of Greenfield has a strip of land across Rte. 31and DTuomola will have to go before the selectmen again; the area was used for gravel for the highway department and the Selectmen will have to sign and agree again. Lot 27-2, with the western boundary as wetlands, has no deed. Dr. Miner said that he had a deed to it, but none has
been found. DTuomala said she had not included this piece of land.
RMarshall said, “How are we going to deal with this no man land.” MBorden asked, “Who is being taxed on this land.? DTuomala said, “I believe the Miners are.” RMarshall queried, “If we approve this subdivision with a line that is very vague, this could present legal problems down the road.” DTuomala said she would talk to the attorney to get clarification on how to include this section of land.
KO’Connell asked, “How many lots will be created?” DTuomala responded “5 lots in the subdivision”. She pointed out note #10 on the first page showing the existing water supply for the main house, barn and cottage. Also she noted on page 4, a future well location.
MBorden asked to include a signature block on plat for driveway locations. KO’Connell said “We don’t have a marking of wetlands on the legend or a seal of the soil scientist.” DTuomala said that the plats will be updated according to the Board’s request. RMarshall said that he will schedule the public hearing for the Miner – Major Subdivision for October 15, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. He asked that DTuomala get the labels to Board by September 24 so certified notices can go out.
10:03 p.m. Informational Discussion
RMarshall sent e-mail to BGrunbeck inquiring about progress on the light pole for the Greenfield Meeting Place. BGrunbeck responded, “The pole has been back ordered 4 times and at last one came in, damaged. He is working on compliance and will keep the Board informed.”
SChicoine has a question about a proposed regulation that was in the January14, 2008 meeting minutes. He read, “For any subdivision of 7 or more lots, an approved, minimum, year round, water source of 30,000 gallons is required for fire suppression no further than 3,000 ft. from the farthest lot.” He asked if this was ever adopted into the regulations, as he couldn’t find it and asked if this would apply to Sawmill Estates. RMarshall said this was a motion suggesting such regulation. There is no record of any public hearing or formal vote to include this as a new regulation. Therefore it doesn’t apply to Sawmill as there is nothing in current regulations about 30,000 gallons.
10:35 p.m. Adjournment
MBorden motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Motion carried in favor.
| 
