Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
September 10, 2012
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MBorden, RWimpory, SChicoine
7:00 p.m. JFletcher began reading the August 27, 2012 meeting minutes completing at 7:12 p.m. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. One substantive change was made.
Line 142 after the word ‘lots’, insert the following: “D Tuomala requested from the Planning Board, a way to delineating all the wetlands on the lot. After discussion, the Planning Board agreed to allow her to delineate a 2 acre developable area on each lot, not within the wetlands.” Any building outside…
7:25 p.m. MBorden motioned to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded. Alll in favor, the motion carried.
7: 26 p.m. Mail Received:
Greenfield Building Permits YTD dated 8/28/12
Rec’d 7 certified notices for WWilliams Minor Subdivision
Rec’d 11 certified notices for Sawmill Road Estates
Application and plot plans for WWilliams Minor Subdivision
Invoice from Ledger Transcription for public hearings notice for September 10, 2012
Invoice for Planning Manuals
Property Maps for Greenfield (assessment maps)
7:27 p.m. RMarshall reminded members of the workshop being held on Wednesday, 9/12, at the Peterborough Library at 7 pm. PRenaud said he wants to attend the next meeting on 9/19 and will sign up via the internet.
RMarshall said that the Greenfield Meeting Place light pole is being installed.
7:30 p.m. Sawmill Estates Design Review Public Hearing
RMarshall handed out a signup sheet for the public. He asked if any members should be recused. Hearing none, he proceeded to read rules for design review meeting, and invited GMitchell to sit at review table. Gwynne Mitchell gave a check #6465 for $171.00 for this hearing. GMitchell presented the following:
· The plan shows the basic layout of the lots and roads on the 95 acres. He read the change relating to meaningful purpose for the open space in the regulation. His purpose is to preserve a wild life corridor around the development.
· The page before P-1 shows the removal fire pond.
· Page 19 shows the design of the three fire cisterns.
· All else remains the same as in his previous application
RMarshall asked if the cistern was located on the inside or outside of the road. GMitchell responded, “On the inside of Butterfield drive on R17-2-27.”
PRenaud asked the capacity of the cisterns. GMitchell responded, “30,000 gallons and tankers will fill the cisterns.”
SChicoine asked, “You have it in trust now, does that change the wording of the documents?” RMarshall asked, “Was the trust in force at the time the documents were prepared.” GMitchell responded, “No.” PRenaud said the wording should be changed to reflect the trust’s ownership.
RMarshall asked, “Do you have a sense of how far this cistern will be from the furthest lot? GMitchell responded, “approximately 1200’.”
JFletcher asked, “As for the wildlife corridor, do you have a sense of where this corridor is?” GMitchell responded, “No specific wildlife corridor is on the property, but there is open land all the way around it.”
RMarshall asked, “Are you aware of any environmentally sensitive areas?” GMitchell responded, “None that he is aware of, only the wetlands where the fire pond was proposed. There is a large gully which comes through the property which will be in the open space area.”
PRenaud asked, “Can you explain the calculations on page 1 in reference to open space. What exactly is the total net open space? GMitchell responded, “I’m not sure, the engineer will have to explain.”
RMarshall commented that Note 18 on page 1 has listed 3 waivers granted by previous Planning Board. Will you be seeking those waivers again? GMitchell said, “Yes.”
SChicoine said, “You don’t need a sidewalk or a bike path waiver. Any development in the open space area will need a site plan review submitted by The Home Owners Association (HOA)
JFletcher asked, “Is R2-17-20 part of the subdivision?” GMitchell responded, “That is open space.”
SChicoine asked, “Will the town have some kind of easement so the Fire department can use the cistern.” GMitchell said, “Yes, but if the town were to use the cistern for uses other than fire-fighting in this development, then the town would have to pay to refill it.”
8:10 p.m. Public questions/input:
RMarshall opened the hearing for public questions/input. PDay, representing his mother who is an abutter, has a concern about the looks of the cistern. Will it detract from my mother’s land with the dimensions or height? GMitchell commented they will be above ground. Their height is 12’ and will not be seen from her property unless the land is clear cut. There are 2 lots between the cisterns and houses, so basically she will be looking over the tops of the cisterns.”
RMarshall said the plans show the cisterns will be buried, with 2' of topsoil, so they won’t be seen by any abutter. PDay asked if there is a setback requirement on the property line for the cisterns. RMarshall said, “None that is known, but the Board will look for any requirement.”
CIrvin asked, “Can you explain how the open space is calculated? Are the roads included or not? Will any blasting occur on the hillside for the cisterns?” GMitchell said, “I am not aware of any.” CIrvin asked, “Do you have enough soil?” GMitchell said, “The engineers chose this spot probably because there is enough soil.”
GMitchell explained that Rogers Road is the only way to the Day property and that Peavy Way (right-of-way) will only give access to Day property.
PDay said he believes there were 5 points as conditions on original approval, will those be met? RMarshall read the 5 conditions to the audience. GMitchell said, “All the previous conditions will be met.”
8:27 Public portion of design review closed:
PRenaud noted that a couple of lots show a 75’ well radius which appear to go into septic areas (Lot R2-17-2-4) and on Lot 21, the well radius goes into road. GMitchell said he will have the septic radius checked on the plats
RMarshall said the Board has reviewed the cisterns design and asked if the applicant would like to proceed. GMitchell said he would and a Public Hearing was scheduled for November 12, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
8:35 p.m. WWilliams Minor Subdivision Hearing
RMarshall handed out a signup sheet the audience. He asked if any members should be recused. Hearing none, he proceeded to read rules for the public hearing and invited WWilliams to sit at review table. WWilliams presented the following:
“I live on Muzzey Hill Road and I want to take off 4 acres to give to our son. It has been surveyed out and there is 350’ frontage on the road, as required by the Soning Ordinance for this zone. A septic designer has determined a site to put in the system and an area for well has been located.
RMarshall went through the application checklist. The checklist is complete with two pending items:
· a signed driveway permit
· a signed septic design.
RMarshall received check #4576 in the amount of $320.00, payable to the Town of Greenfield for application fees and check #4577 in the amount of $25.00 to Hillsborough County Treasurer for the LCHIP fee.
KO’Connell asked, “Is the road relatively dry?” WWilliams replied, “Yes, there are no culverts and the road drains to the north. I believe the highway dept. will let me know if one is needed.”
JFletcher asked if there are any outstanding criteria. MBorden said, “Yes, driveway permit and septic design approval number.”
8:58 p.m Public Questions/input.
RCilley asked if he could see the design. WWilliams supplied a copy for review. RCilley said he’s in favor of the subdivision.
9:01 pm Public portion closed.
RMarshall asked if there was any discussion of the application. MBorden motioned to approve the application subject to receipt of a signed septic design permit from state and a signed driveway permit from town. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
RMarshall said, “Once we get the mylars, the Planning Board will sign it.” As for the paper copies, one will be signed copy is for his records, the other five for our records. The mylar will be sent to the state.”
9:07 p.m. Duane & Gail Curtis’ application
The Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) has an application for a variance on the setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Duane and Gail Curtis are requesting a variance for a 15’ setback. The ZBA has asked the Planning Board for an opinion on the request. KO’Connell recused himself from this discussion.
RMarshall said, “His house is already within the 50’ setback, approx 20’. The Board reviewed the sketch of the property and the reasons for the variance provided in the application. After discussion, MBorden motioned to recommend that the ZBA should follow the zoning ordinance. PRenaud seconded. All in favor, the motion carried.
9:45 p.m. Adjournment
Kevin O’Connell moved to adjourn. PRenaud seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried.
| 
