Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
February 11, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MBorden, SChicoine
7:05 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the meeting minutes of January 28, 2013. No substantive changes were made. JFletcher motioned to accept the minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded the motion. Vote unanimous in favor.
7:15 p.m. Mail:
2 certified notices of Regional Impact from the Sawmill Estates Development - one to Town of Bennington and the other to SWRPC.
Newspaper notice of February 11, 2013 Public Hearing for tree removal on Swamp Road
NH Dept of Environmental Service, ‘The Source’ brochure
Cell Tower Notice- on February 19, 2013 Milford Planning Board
A notice regarding new Standard Mileage Rates for 2013
Town of Greenfield, new returned checks fees
A Ledger Transcript Invoice dated 1/31/2013 – Planning Board portion is $88.83
A SWRPC invoice for 2/12/2013 for Planning & Land Use Manuals - $165.00
7:10 p.m. Old Business –
RMarshall said he received an e-mail from DAdams challenging the Planning Board as a participant in the cardboard sled race at the Winter Challenge.
RMarshall said a further outreach notice/program for grant process needs to be met. He would like to copy the zoning changes onto brightly colored paper and spread them out about town. Placing the notices at the Harvester, the Library and Town office. The Board was in agreement.
Round 2 Grant Update - RMarshall will hand deliver the Community Planning Grant Round 2 application tomorrow, February 12. Should we be accepted, we’ll be getting a grant of about $25,000 for the creation of a Neighborhood Heritage District Ordinance.
7:31 p.m. Public Hearing for Tree Road cutting on Swamp Road
RMarshall read regulations for public hearing. No audience members were present for sign-up sheet. TMurray, DPW Supervisor, Town of Greenfield commented that 6 trees needs to be cut on Swamp Road, as they are dead and will create safety concerns should they fall. Five pines and one maple need to be removed. One nuisance tree is on the corner. TMurray called DCrane, PSNH, because trees are too close to the lines. PSNH said they’d cut them down at their expense. JFletcher motioned to approve the cutting of trees. MBorden seconded. Vote unanimous in favor. RMarshall will send an e-mail DCrane at PSNH to let him know of the Board’s decision.
7:46 p.m. Sawmill Estates continuation – RMarshall reopened the hearing, recognizing that should someone come in after 8:00 pm, we will go over the information again CBranon, representative for Sawmill Estates Development along with Gene and Gwynne Mitchell presented the following in the application process:
CBranon reviewed discussions to date. Wetlands buffers had been included. He had discussed open space justifications and importance of the definition of open space. The Sawmill Estates home owners association clearly identifies the covenants and policing of the document. This had been reviewed by Town Counsel at the last approval.
RMarshall asked, “Do any changes need to be made in the covenants as a result of subdivision regulation changes since 2008?” CBranon commented he doesn’t believe there are any changes needed. “Have there been any changes in the RSA’s since that time?” CBranon said he isn’t sure. RMarshall commented that even though town counsel reviewed the old application, it should be reviewed again by counsel because of the potential for changes. CBranon said, “These documents are typically prepared at the conclusion of the approval.”
Waiver requests:
#1. Appendix A of road design and road grade – proposing a grade of 8.2%-8.3% at the intersection of Butterfield Dr. The town regulations say 8%, but the 8.2 – 8.3% increase on the design plans will provide a better transistion with existings grade at the lots, which also allow further construction of Peavey Way. This was discussed during the older application. 8.2% is the average grade for the road.
PRenaud asked, “Is this slope even or is this an up and down slope?” CBranon said, “The waiver is for 8.2 - 8.3% grade for the entire road. We do meet the 100’ slope before an intersection. The 8.2% grade runs all the way up to Peavey Way providing a more responsible grade. It provides for a much better setting in the development.
Gene Mitchell interjected, “The state is looking to maintain the contour of the land and to reduce too many cuts.”
PRenaud said, “The maximum length of such a grade is 500’, are you requesting a waiver for that as well?” CBranon said, “Yes. Remember the site walk was done in the center of the road, and the grade is a key element to the waiver from the grade and length.” PRenaud said, “I believe you need to ask for a separate waiver for the length. The intent of this waiver was to go above the 8% rule and encompass the length.” CBranon said he is formally requesting a waiver from the 8% and the length of the road under Appendix A - Street Design and Construction Standards, #C 3 Alignments and Grades A & B.
CBranon said the letter submitted in December had the corrected numbering of the waivers.
#2 Appendix A - Minimum vertical curve of 200’. CBranon asked, “Is this required? It appears to have been removed from road construction standards. I see no reference in the ordinances at this time, so this is not necessary at this time.” RMarshall asked the Board if they were in agreement with this assessment. The Board agreed that there was no need for that waiver to be requested.
#3 High Density Soils Mapping. The stormwater designs have been approved by state and the permit is valid. High density soil samples would only add to the applicants costs and there would be no gain for this application.
Public Concerns: PDay was concerned that the construction of Peavey Way might provide access to Rogers Road that abuts his mother’s property. They are concerned about too much public access there. She has 3000’ on Rogers Road, and in time past, people have been cutting trees to make 4-wheeler roads, and fears this may happen more frequently because Peavey Way will create easier access. Recently Peavey Way has been cut and someone has been using it. GMitchell said that he has people that have been accessing the road that runs parallel to Route 31. There is nothing that we can do to tell people not to use the road because Rogers Road is a Class 6 public way. CBranon said, “The creation of Peavey Way was introduced by the Planning Board to provide potential access to Rogers
Road for the future. The construction will stop at station 50 and provide a turn-around for fire equipment and Cistern access.”
Mr. Day asked, “Is the development road private or public? Is it posted?” CBranon said, “It is private.” JFletcher said other private roads are posted in the town. RMarshall asked, “Is this something the Board requires? Board members said, “No, it isn’t required.”
SChicoine asked, “Peavey Way on sheet 13-isn’t the driveway for lot 9 the located too close to the intersection?” CBranon said the driveway can be located anywhere. The road is paved at the turn-around and the driveway would be gravel.
KO’Connell asked, “Is there any signage on Peavey Way advising of the turnaround?” CBranon said, “Yes.” He noted that the name “Peavey Way” will be changed to Dorr Way to avoid confusion with Peavey Road, a class 6 road in town.
SChicoine noted minor corrections:
On page 19, note #3: to change Mason Fire Dept to Greenfield Fire Dept.
On page 14, the title in lower left corner - common driveway lots 20 and 21 should be listed as 18 and 19; in the upper right corner, the driveway grade to lot 16 should be lot 14.
On page 11 upper right corner - septic arrangement for lot 29 is located in retention basin, shouldn’t that be changed? CBranon said it would be changed.
On the profile sheet there is no showing of slope of the driveway for lot 1 anywhere in the plan. CBranon said, “It shows the grading on Page 1. Profiles are typically provided for common driveway. SChicoine asked, “Do you know what it is? CBranon responded, “Around 12%.”
SChicoine said, “We’ve gone over the open space acreages. Are they the same?” CBranon said he will have to get previous plans to check. “I don’t believe there has been any change to the lots. Calculation is the total net developable 62.2 acres which required 40% in open space. The required net open space 24.4 acres with 28.12 acres as developable land. We exceed the open space requirement. This lay-out provides for substantially more open space than is required.”
SChicoine said, “The driveways appear to be engineered. Will they be built when the roads are constructed or will the landowners be building their driveway?” CBranon said, “Every lot will require the landowners to meet the driveway, building, septic requirements of the town.”
MBorden commented the original proposal was to be phased. GMitchell said it will be, incrementally, 600’ road. CBranon commented the road, will have to meet NFPA to reach the cisterns. RMarshall said “Since the cisterns must be part of the initial construction, this compels us to do this in phases and include the turnaround at Dorr Way in the first phase.
PRenaud asked, “Is this is a phased subdivision?” CBranon said, “Yes.” PRenaud noted page 37 of zoning ordinance, Section IX. Open Space Development, E phased developments application. My interpretation is that we can’t approve this. CBranon said, “We are doing a phased subdivision, not a phased development.” RMarshall said, “This is a subdivision that will be phased in construction, not phased in development.”
SChicoine commented this application is coming up to the 65 days marked since the application was accepted, so do we need an extension? GMitchell said, “Yes, we are aware of the need for an extension and are in favor of an extension.”
Mr. Day said: ”The plans show Dorr Way as an access road. Will the plan show that the road will stop? CBranon said it does state on the plan that the road construction will stop at the turn around.
RMarshall said he would entertain a motion to close public hearing portion. SChicoine said, “Doesn’t the ConCom Chair have information for us?” RMarshall said she does, but it can be presented as a request from us. CBranon said “I specifically asked her to address any questions she had at the last meeting. She could have submitted a letter stating her concerns, or questions and she should have presented them this evening.” RMarshall said the Board has the right to ask others for information as we deliberate or we can extend the public hearing. CBranon said, “It is my understanding I have been here to address as many of her concerns, and she chose not to list them at last meeting. Time is critical on many levels to allowing this project to go
forward.” Gene Mitchell said, “If I am a concerned citizen and I have information and I don’t show up, how does my information get to the board?” RMarshall responded, “The Board can request information from someone.” CBranon said, “In clarification, it’s been my experience, when a public hearing is closed, it means dialogue is closed between the abutters and applicants.”
PRenaud said, “Because the town’s Concom Chair isn’t present, we should give her the chance to respond and then close the public hearing.” KO’Connell said, “I agree. We need to continue the public hearing until our next meeting and give her the chance at the beginning of the meeting on February 25 to address here concerns.”
MBorden said, “We hired an engineer to review everything that was presented on the old application, SKeach. He noted that there are no site distances on the driveways. CBranon commented, “There are a number of factors for line site of driveways and there is a note on the front page.” MBorden said, “In certain cases, the driveways will have to be specifically located, same as with septic and wells.” CBranon said, “I could show the 200’ driveway location easily, but it is up to the landowner where he wants to place his driveway.” GMitchell asked, “What if we can’t do driveway location?” MBorden said, “If you can’t achieve necessary goals on open space, which is different, there are
benefits to the town and the developer but it has to fit in our regulations.” CBranon said, “This plan can support the site distance for the driveways. Open space lots have a100’ frontage and many of these lots are 200’ or more.”
MBorden motioned to continue the public hearing to February 25, 2013 at 7:30. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
9:23 PCC JHopkins
JHopkins asked, “What does the Planning Board need from me to for me to open up a home-based business on my property.” RMarshall said, “Fill out a site plan review application. Call me to schedule a time for the Planning Board to review it. We will review the application and tell you if you need to do a site plan review or not. RMarshall said the application is on line. JHopkins asked to schedule a review for February 25. RMarshall will schedule the initial review.
9:35 p.m. Adjournment
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. JFletcher seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
