Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
December 17, 2012
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MBorden, RWimpory, and SChicoine
7:01 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the December 10, 2012 meeting minutes. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made. MBorden motioned to accept the minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor
7:16 p.m. Mail Received:
· NH Community Planning Grant Program announcing grant writing workshops
· Invoice from COgilvie for $180 for plan review for Sawmill Estates subdivision
· Invoice from Local Government Center for LGC seminars
7:30 p.m. Sawmill Estates Subdivision Hearing
CBranon commented that he has made modifications to drawings as a result of the many questions from the December 10 meeting. He handed out copies of the modifications for the board to review.
Addressing the deficiencies:
· #2 Ownership issue – He submitted a copy of an e-mail showing a letter authorizing CBranon, Gene and Gwynne Mitchell to act as agents for the Trust from the trustee, HBettencourt
· #9 Identification of frontage for the driveway on Lot 22 - Page 3 of the plans now show the symbol for the driveway
· #17 Methods of sewage disposal and test pits for Lot 18 - The test pit data has been added to the plans
· #18 the 75’ well radius was missing for Lot 29 - It has been added to the plan. Lot 27- The well radius previously extended over the boundary of the lot and now it is within the lot. Lot 4 - The well radius was beyond the boundary. It is now positioned within the lot.
Note modifications on cover sheet:
· Note 18 waiver request was removed
· Note 19 addressed some liability issue, removed
The error on reference of the DOT permit said…”1998 year, but 2009 is the correct date, and the renewal of this permit is pending. CBranon does not anticipate any problems in getting the renewal. The wetlands subdivision and the AOT permits are valid.
CBranon said the only modification not made is the 25’ wetland buffer, but that will be done.
RWimpory asked, “Why wasn’t the plan’s name changed to reflect the Trust’s name?” CBranon said the plans are being prepared for G/G Mitchell and the letter demonstrates ownership and allows CBranon to act agent. RMarshall asked, “Does the Board accept this?” The Board said yes, they do.
SChicoine asked,
· “The dredge and fill permit is for the fire pond and cisterns are now being installed. Should the dredge and fill permit be removed/” CBranon said that it will be removed.
· “Regarding the driveway permit number, Is that going to address the change of ownership?” CBranon said, “We will submit under the current owner, but the state does allow transfer of permits. The number should be 8315A. The AOL permit should have an “a” after it as it has been amended. CBranon said those changes fall under the Attorney General’s purview.
· Under Note 11 these notes come from the old application and they refer to the 2005 subdivision plans. We now have a 2010 subdivision regulation, so notes should reflect the correct regulations. CBranon said it would be corrected.
MBorden asked about the location of the driveway on lot 22. How the is line-of-site on that driveway? CBranon responded the line-of-site is taken 10’ off the pavement and there is an open ditch, but there should be no problem. CBranon said a driveway permit will be secured for each driveway.
7:50 Discussion opened to public
KPaulsen said I have heard Peavey Way referred to as Peavey Road. Has this road been misnamed. Is this name set in concrete? CBranon he would to have a discussion with the Fire Chief concerning the name so as to have a clear address for 911. Road names are not set in stone. If there is a conflict, regardless, the safety issue is paramount to have emergency personnel show up at the proper address.
CIrvin said, “I am curious as to what kind of trust is this?” CBranon said he is not aware of what kind of trust it is. CIrvin said, “If it is a blind trust, then the owner does not have the right to manage it.”
CIrvin asked, “What is the percentage of the parcel that will be kept as open space?” CBranon said section 9 of zoning ordinance outlines the open space requirement to be a minimum 40% of the developable area. The open space provided is 41.9 acres, which 28.1 acres meet the development acreage which is 45.2% of total net of the developable area is open space.
RMarshall asked, “How does your development meet the zoning regulations defined of page 36?” CBranon said he looked up the purpose and there are 6 items that outline the goal of the open space development:
-to promote open space
-any land that you put into open space is meaningful
-it will remain as undevelopable acreage
-try to keep as much of the land in open space while maintaining the rural character
-try to give as many people in the community access to open space
-maintaining/incorporating trails, such as Peavey Way connecting to Rogers Road, which will allow the public to use trails
RMarshall asked, “Has there been an environmental assessment been done on the land?” CBranon said, “When the applicant applied for the state wetlands permit, there was a requirement at that time to notify the state’s historical and environmental agency and there were no hits for any endangered species. CBranon said, “We try to be as sensitive to any conditions on the land as we can be. Wildlife will collect in wetlands, so preserving those areas as open space is meaningful. I don’t believe any of the land surrounding this property are designated ‘open space’.”
CIrwin asked, “What is the homeowner’s association covenant that determines what is permitted use for the open space areas. What is the legal assurance that the open space will never be used?” CBranon responded, “I will have to research that. This homeowners covenant basically is a guideline within the open space regulations, and any modifications will require an approval from this Board.” CBranon said, “No part of the open space land is part of any landowner’s property.” He said he will research the covenants.”
KPaulsen said, “Is the homeowners association responsible for the property taxes on the open space?” CBranon said, “Typically the homeowners are taxed on the open space pieces.”
CIrvin asked, “How long is the road?” CBranon responded Butterfield Dr is 4600’ in length measured from Sawmill Road at the center line. Peavey Way is 800’ in length, but will be constructed as a turnaround.” CIrvin asked, “Who will make the decision that Peavey Way needs to be connected to Rogers Rd. Who will pay for it?” CBranon said, “It is my understanding, unless there it is going to be a connection to Rogers Road, no determination has been made as to who will connect these roads.” Cirvin said she was puzzled as to why Peavey Way is being built. CBranon said Peavey Way being constructed would give us the ability to connect to Rogers Rd.
RMarshall asked, “Is that stretch of road being set aside by deeds?” CBranon said there are right-of-ways and easements all associated with it.
Cirvin asked, “Will there be any blasting needed to construct the cisterns?” CBranon said, “I don’t believe so as there was no ledge present in test pits done by the cistern location. When installing the cisterns, they will typically try not to blast.”
CIrvin asked, “Is there going to be any blasting in putting in Butterfield Road, or any of the homes required?” CBranon said, “When the test pits were dug, I don’t recall any areas where we hit ledge, but I can’t say there will be not blasting required. There are procedures for blasting and any company that does it follows strict guidelines.” CIrvin asked, “Has there been any comprehensive soils analysis done.” CBranon said, “Many test pits were done by a soils surveyor.”
RMarshall asked if the Board minded continuing this public hearing until January 28, at 7:30 pm. as the next speakers have arrived.
8:37 p.m. MBorden motioned to continue the Sawmill Estates Public Hearing until January 28, at 7:30 pm. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
8:41 p.m. Lost power, meeting continue under limited lighting from the. RMarshall said with the power outage we will continue as quickly as we can.
8:41 p.m. Warrant Articles – Proposed Zoning Ordinance changes due to CPG Ordinance Review
LMurphy and SWaleryszak, from SWRPC, were present.LMurphy suggested two ordinances that might be considered: Surface Water Protection Ordinance and the heritage commission ordinance. She commented the large impervious surfaces are mapped and SWaleryszak is here to go over the maps.
RMarshall asked LMurphy, “Could we have you propose a model Heritage Commission ordinance, not propose it this year, and suggest it next year? LMurphy said, “That is a definite possibility.” RMarshall asked, “Is surface water something that ConCom can use also?” “Yes,” LMurphy responded. RMarshall said, “Can we get a model ordinance for this as well and then put in 2014 & 2015?” LMurphy said, “Yes, talking about water resources, we don’t want our rights taken away from our shore front areas and it’s not an area we want to rush into.”
She also commented, “Your site plan regulations are very good, and there’s nothing of substance for change. The Board should look at future land use section that I referenced in the zoning ordinance review handout.”
RWimpory asked, “In light of the new Master Plan Vision statement, is there something else we need to add?
LMurphy said, “No there isn’t, only a couple of regulations.”
RMarshall asked the Board, “Do you want to have her draw up a couple of ordinances to have ready for the future?” SChicoine said, “Yes. I’d rather do that than to rush an ordinance through.” KO’Connell said he would rather work on this stuff now for later on rather than rushing it through. “We can’t go a public hearing as it stands now. Surface water is definitely the one that we want.” LMurphy responded that she has a good brochure that will explain all this, surface water. KO’Connell asked, “Can you explain the differences between the Shore land Protection Act and a Surface Water Ordinance in the brochure?” LMurphy said, “Yes.”
LMurphy then gave a brief description of the differences between a Heritage Commission and an Historic District. Drafts of the two models, an Historic Commission and a Surface Water Ordinance will be written up by LMurphy.
JFletcher commented, “It’s a nice idea, to explore it, and get the language of it.” MBorden said, “A good idea, but there’s not a lot volunteers who can serve on the committee.”
SWaleryszak from SWRPC quickly explained the mapping he has done for Greenfield. He asked the Board members to take a look at the maps. The red dots represents road, parking lots, building. If you want a more detailed copy, e-mail me and I’ll get it to Bob and he will e-mail to you. The information is based on 2010 UNH aerial survey. The fact sheet explains the symbols, etc. SNHPC did automated analysis of all the impervious surfaces in the Piscataquog watershed, of which Greenfield has a small portion. RMarshall said, “This is for only the Piscataquog watershed. Any changes need to be sent by mid-January, 14th or 15th.” LMurphy will have SWaleryszak send a PDF file to RMarshall for the Board to review.
Because of a power outage, RMarshall scheduled a work session on December 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. with LMurphy to discuss ordinance proposals for this year and the two draft models she will be writing.
9:22 pm Adjournment Motion
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
