Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
October 15, 2012
Members present: RMarshall, KO’Connell, MBorden, RWimpory, SChicoine
7:02 p.m. Minutes:
MBorden began reading the September 24, 2012 meeting.Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made. MBorden motioned to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
7:15 p.m. Mail
Returned certified letter to Doris A. Skinner
Copy of cash receipt for Greenfield Corner Property LLC
Local Government Center brochure – Annual Preview Guide
7:17 p.m. Old Business:
RMarshall informed the Board that he has talked with LMurphy about the maps sent to us concerning the parcels of land that were identified incorrectly. LMurphy said any errors that we know exist need to be identified in a list and to send the list to TMurray at SWRPC to correct. He asked the Board members to look at the maps and make notes for LMurphy for our next meeting with her on 10/22/12, especially the constraints map. He commented that a PDF file of the maps were e-mailed to the Board and said to use those maps to make their lists.
RMarshall brought up another issue before the Board. “We have two problems when SRrossi is unable to attend a meeting or is out for a lengthy absence. One is the recording of meeting minutes, which one of the Board members can do. The second problem is notification of cases before the Board, involving the assembly of the certified notifications, the legal notice to the newspaper, town bulletin board, and post office. The Board has elected a corresponding secretary, KO’Connell. My question is, should the corresponding secretary be SRossi’s back-up? It makes great sense to have the secretary do SRossi’s duties.” The Board felt that the Corresponding Secretary should be the backup. RMarshall said he would put the flow chart of the duties together.
7:30 p.m. Public Hearing Miner Subdivision Monadnock Survey, Inc. agent.
RMarshall asked if the Hearing had been properly noticed. SRossi confirmed proper notifications. He then read rules and procedures concerning the public hearing and passed around a sign-up sheet to the audience.
DTuomala, Monadnock Survey, Inc. presented the following:
The deed for this property reads as one parcel of 99 acres, which Dr. Miner wanted subdivided amongst his children. She presented color coded plot plans showing the five lots. Two years ago in a Preliminary Conceptual Consultation, the Board agreed to allow each parcel a 2 acre dry parcel within each chunk of land that will support a house, well, septic in exchange for not having to show all wetlands on the parcels. Each parcel does show this, but it is a ‘proposed’ location and could be changed according to the owner’s desire.
The Town DPW supervisor and has given his verbal approval for where the driveway cuts will be placed. DToumala noted that after reaching an agreement with Selectmen over their location, pins are now set and clearly define the Town owned yellow parcel. She also commented that the blue triangular acreage known as Parcel A, “has been historically taxed and Dr. Miner has paid the taxes on it even though no deed could be found for the property. It is believed that this was a land swap with the railroad a long time ago and the deed was never registered.”
7:44 p.m. RMarshall went through the application checklist. He then asked Board members if the application was sufficiently complete to invoke jurisdiction. KO’Connell motioned to accept the application as sufficiently complete. MBorden seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
Waivers:
Sec IV.C.14 KO’Connell said, “Dealing with a large lot and not having delineation of wetlands, the Planning Board agreed to allow the identification of a 2 acre sized developable area on each lot. The developable area should have a perc test done to show that it is in fact developable. If you want a development outside the 2 acre developable area, the owner must come before the Board to get approval for new developable area location.” KO’Connell motioned to accept the waiver from Sec IV.C.14. RWimpory seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
Sec IV.C.16 Methods of sewage disposal waiver withdrawn by DTuomala
Sec IV.D.1 Soil erosion waiver. PWimpory motioned to approve. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
Sec IV.D. 2 Septic design waiver. MBorden motioned to approve. PWimpory seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
Sec IV.C.11DTuomala asked for a waiver on lots R7-27-1-1, R7-27-2, and R7-27-3 BD for tree line delineation. PWimpory motioned to approve. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
DTuomala will add note 11 to read “A contiguous two acre area suitable for residential development exists on lots R7-27-1-1, R7-27-2, and R7-27-3. Development is to be within these areas unless another appropriate area can be found on the lot, subject to Planning Board approval.”
8:15 p.m. Discussion from the public:
SPenoyer said that the subdivision plot plan shows Ella May Way as a road. Is it a private or town road? RMiner doesn’t allow anyone to go through there. There appears to be a building over the property line and in the roadway, the sugar shack. There was a time when Dr Miner was working hard on conservation easement and was going to sign into the conservation easement for a large part of the parcel. I am sad to see that it is going this way, into a subdivision. In creating the 2 acre buildable area, with one in the General Residence District and another in the Rural Agricultural District, doesn’t rural agricultural have a 5 acre lot minimum? RMarshall answered, “Yes it does but we did not use lot size regulation of the various districts to come to a conclusion about the size of the developable
area square. We just asked Monadnock Survey to identify a 2 acre developable building area on each lot so they wouldn’t have to delineate wetlands across the whole property”.
SKaminecki asked, “Can they move the 2 buildable acre areas, if the perc test isn’t ok?”
TSchloemer said, “The plan doesn’t show any development at this time, but if it were occur, will I have a chance to voice my concerns again?” RMarshall said “Yes, but you would have to follow the Planning Board agenda’s to see of the change. It will not be in a noticed public hearing, so follow the agenda online.”
8:37 p.m. Public hearing portion will be continued to 9:00 p.m. on 11/12/12
8:41 Deliberative session
Monadnock Survey requested a list of items to be completed
Include a signature box for Selectmen signatures needed on mylar
Show granite boundaries on Town land
Check to see that no part is within the 100 yr flood plain.
Locate the 2 driveways over RR tract on Zephyr Lake Rd.
Town DPW supervisor will sign for driveway cuts on mylar. Driveway permits will be required of all lots.DTuomala will have a block will be on plan for his signature
Note 12: add to sentence: “selling of lot will require quiet title clearance.
RMarshall said to DTuomala that two checks are needed. One check payable to Town of Greenfield for $840.00 and one check to Hillsboro County treasurer $25.00 (LChip). She will bring payment at next meeting.
9:06 p.m. PCC IGuthrie
IGuthrie handed letter from engineer offering information supporting the proposed common driveway. (A copy of letter in the file.)
IGuthrie said, “Looking at the blown up section on the plan, by adding 69 and 31 feet together it meets the back lot road frontage and adding the other measurements together meets the 252.57 frontage for the front lot. My engineer and the T DPW supervisor agree that it would be better to leave the driveway as is.
Guthrie’s said it appears that I need a variance from the requirement that the location of the driveway be within the frontage of the lot from Board of Adjustment.
9:27 p.m. PCC JAdams Subdivision
DMcKinney and DAdams present. DMcKinney presented diagram of lot R1-34 on Sawmill Rd, known as Midway Farm showing a subdivision of three lots. There is a newly built house on site of the burned house. There is ample road frontage for the 20 acres. There are several high and dry areas within the proposed lots. My question is, “How much dry land and frontage are needed for each lot?” The lot is in the General Residence District and the wetland overlay district might come into play for this subdivision as there are 3 very wet locations on the land. The 3 lots could be divided into 5-10 acres per lot and we can create lots with 2 acres of dry land.”
DMcKinney asked, “Is there a requirement that the driveway be on the dry frontage? If so, there may be an issue, as the driveway is not there.” RMarshall said, “62 feet of dry frontage is needed to create a driveway. Is that possible with each parcel? “
DMcKinney said, “There is no practical access to this 3 acre because wetlands come right up to the current driveway. Variance(s) will be needed. The middle piece is the nicest spot, but hardest place to comply with town’s regulations as there isn’t a 2 acres (contiguous) available on the southern side of the property.”
MBorden said, “Contiguous land is one issue.”
RWimpory asked will you have an issue with septic systems. DMcKinney said, “No, it appears that the dry land acreage will have a 75’ from wetlands.” RMarshall said, “You will need a wetlands scientist and I note that this whole parcel lies in the groundwater protection area. So you need to check the new groundwater ordinance. Are you aware if this in the flood hazard area?” DMcKinney said, “No sure, but will check it, but there is a significant rise in the area. New lots probably not, current house not sure.” RMarshall said, “The state road cuts will be needed, and culverts and flows will need to be shown on a plan.” DMcKinney said he doesn’t anticipate any issues with State on the cuts.
Items to address:
2 acres dry ground
62’ of dry land for driveways (12 ‘ for driveway, 25’ for wetland setbacks on each side).
Any zoning driveway requirements may need variances. If so, you will have to go the Board of Adjustment on the three lots.
RMarshall said, “You can do rough sketches, calculations and come back at another PCC to showing the buildable acreage and designs, driveway cuts. Do you have the information you need?”
McKinney responded, “Yes, I’ve got what I need, thank you for your time.”
10:02 Adjournment
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. PWimpory seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
