Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
February 25, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, MBorden,KOconnell , SChicoine
7:00 p.m. Minutes:
JFletcher began reading February 11, 2013 meeting minutes. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done.
Line 144, a substantive change was made to the sentence. The sentence should read: “My interpretation is that we can’t approve this unless this is a phased development.”
7:30 p.m. Sawmill Estates public hearing continuation.
A sign-up sheet was circulated throughout the audience. RMarshall read the guidelines for conduct during the hearing. RMarshall asked CBranon if he had any more information to present to the Board. He did not. RMarshall then asked members of the public any comments:
CIrvin, ConCom Chairperson’s concerns:
I have 5 objections to this development; 3 in my role of ConCom position and 2 as a private citizen.
In my role at ConCom Chair:
1. Not in the spirit of what was intended in the Open Space Ordinance.
a. This property is considered supporting landscape by the NH Wildlife Action Plan, which means it’s an important area near/abutting other land of high conservation value. It is part of the Quabbin to Cardigan focus area.
b. Little balance between allowing the land owner to develop the property while at the same time maintaining much of the parcel’s value as open space for habitat, conservation, recreation.
c. This development removes much of the value this parcel has as open space and the open space that remains has little value for habitat. This development proposes a fundamental change of the environment, eco system on this parcel. Hence the need for an Alteration of Terrain permit. Loss of tree cover, blue berry bushes and habitat suitable for bear, moose, coyote, fox, and deer.
d. One test of its value as open space is whether a land trust would be willing to hold the conservation easement on the parcel. I don’t think any of the land trust organizations in the state would be interested in holding the conservation easement on the remaining open space, but they may in its current configuration.
e. Another test is how valuable is the open space, as open space, if the surrounding lots are developed in a similar way? This issue becomes more relevant if an abutting parcel is allowed to be developed in the same way. I don’t know enough about the parcel to north, but the parcel to the east could be, particularly if you allow Peavey Way. While the current owner of the parcel to east may not want to develop the land locked parcel, the next owner may want to and would see Peavey as the opportunity. Using the open space ordinance to open up development potential to other lots shouldn’t be a purpose of an Open Space development. The homeowners in this development will have
ample access to Rogers Roads through the other old logging roads that exist right now.
2. Lack of oversight for the open space.
The homeowners association would be responsible for monitoring the open space, which is akin to the wolf minding the hen house.
3. Lack of a high density soils analysis
a. For a development of this size and this location, I do not think the Planning Board should approve this development without a thorough soils analysis.
b. We don’t know to what extent this development will require blasting.
As a concerned citizen:
1. I object to a development that introduces a 1+ mile long road. While as currently conceived, the road will be private, the likelihood the homeowners association will petition to the town to upgrade the road to a public road is high. The homeowners only need one very talented/persistent lawyer to get the rules changed in their favor.
2. Many people in town have been part of the visioning process of Master Plan work over the past year, and when this Board came back and showed us what the residents want, it was to keep the town’s rural look. This development looks like it will become a ‘suburban’ area, not rural.
Gene Mitchell rebutted:
#3. Lack of high density soils analysis: My first application when I wanted the fire pond had three soils studies done, and all the engineers say it isn’t necessary.
“As for the visioning process, Yes, the town wants to keep it rural. The development will not be seen from the road, it will broaden the tax base. I understood from survey that what the people want, may not be attainable.”
#1. Not in the spirit of what was intended. How would CIrvin see this land developed? Everything we’ve added or changed, we’ve gone out of the way to meet your concerns. These are considered the best.
#2. Lack of oversight in open space. The oversight will be regulated by the homeowners association. At present we don’t have any idea who is going to be living in the development or what they are going to be doing concerning the open space, but the covenant has guidelines.
Gwynne Mitchell said, “The homeowners association at our gated community in Florida are fully involved in their community and their covenants.”
Gene Mitchell further commented, “Ms. Irvin isn’t concerned about the community, but concerned for outside land development. Our homeowners association will govern within their covenants. Her comments about people sneaking in on the Planning Board and changing things, is not a valid argument, but a personal concern. To have the road changed over, in the future, a request has to go before the town to have it changed.”
CBranon said, “The first thing is that the plan we have brought before you exceeds the regulations by a lot.”
1. Not in the spirit of what was intended. In response to the tree coverage conservation value, yes, the tree cutting cuts value a lot. As it pertains to open space regulation, this site puts nearly 41.5 acres in open space. The net developable open space is 28.2 and is laid out in a fashion nearly 1 1/2 times more than required. No wetlands are involved. This is large tract of land, the open space style is preferred and it doesn’t allow abutting areas to be developable. The development allows many of the individual lots direct access to open space which is a benefit to the lots and community. The open space regulations are met. Tree cutting is going to
happen, but each home owner will be doing his own.
#2. Lack of oversight in open space.
I’ve done open space in other communities and there haven’t been any issues in those communities. They meet standard legal requirements along with the homeowner’s association covenants. GMitchell said, “We came before the Board earlier, and the previous Board said ‘open space’. We’ve gone out of our way and beyond what we had to do to meet the Board’s request for ‘open space’.
#3. Lack of in-depth soils analysis:
“I have performed a great many test pits on this property. Test pit data gives more information that a high density soils analysis. We had a soils scientist walk the property with some of the Board members. A high density soils analysis is augured as 2” holes with a range 12” to 2’. A high density soils analysis at this point doesn’t offer anything to the design. I utitilized the test pit materials and the information is submitted to the state. Soils analysis will not change the design of this project. There is no value of soils analysis to design, it’s a checklist item. Soils analysis will not impact drainage or state permits that we have. I’m not aware of any regulation concerning high density soils analysis.
#4. Objection to mile long road.
“Ms. Irvin made the statement she would not support any development with mile long road. She is not a ‘pro’ development person.
#5. Visioning of rural character.
“I understand the town resident’s interest is to keep the rural character in town. I found it hard to believe that the development is going to impact the rural character. This development promotes rural character. It is buffered from Sawmill Road, there will be little to no impact on the rural character.”
“As for Peavey Way (Dorr Way) and Rogers Road, it all falls within in the Master Plan, The residents of this development are allowed direct access to areas that abut the lot, to trails that currently exist. We don’t impact any of the wetlands. There are strips along certain areas, but they aren’t needed to meet your regulations. There’s some additional land that isn’t to be developed which is covered in the home owners development.”
This is a conceptual development where you lay things out in a fashion that is most beneficial to the environment. Every lot has constraints and different areas to be developed. Open space is intended to be a balance.”
SPennoyer commented that CIrvin spoke well. “As for the Open Space, I was on the Planning Board when we worked on open space bylaw which brought wildlife habitat consideration into the regulation. We could argue all night long about this open space regulation. Outside perimeter is not of conservation value. I encourage that an outside consultant be hired to study this plan in terms of the wildlife habitat value.”
“The Monadnock Conservancy has been asked to oversee several land trusts. The homeowners association could hold great value in protecting the open space, but they also could not. I highly encourage the Board to have that area assessed by an outside agency for open space value. I urge you to be cautious. Look at open space regulation carefully and see that it (the development) is consistent with the intent of the open space bylaw.”
CBranon responded, “Where in open space regulation does it say that this has to meet conservation land value? Part of my job is to review the local ordinance and put a plan together to meet the ordinance. Nowhere did I see that open space land must meet conservation land value? A lot of reference has been made to conservation land value, with the suggestion that open space value will be related to conservation land. I did not see where this is required by the town of Greenfield. In looking at the regulations, I do not see the correlation between the two.”
GMitchell said as to the length of road, it has been designed to have less cuts and fills. Several proposals were brought in originally, but we went with the one that the previous board wanted. I find it difficult to respond to an argument about the home owner’s association future concerns.
SPennoyer said, “It is relevant if there is something going on outside the open space area, and then the town gets involved. You are looking at it as an open space development and does it meet all the criteria. The town will be put in the position to uphold the definition of open space.”
GMitchell asked, “What is the definition of open space?” RMarshall said “the Board has to discuss the ‘open space’ definition.”
MBorden said on Page 36, 37, 38 and 39 are the definitions of ‘open space, phased subdivision development, net developable area, standard for approval and general requirements.
RMarshall asked the assembly, “Is there any new evidence for the Board?
JRenaud said, “The spirit of the open space development is implicit to have some conservation land value. With the location of this parcel in the Quabbin to Cardigan area as a sensitive zone with high value conservation land, as a suggestion only, perhaps the landowner might consider putting the parcel in conservation easement? If you approach the Forest Society or Monadnock Conservancy perhaps, you’d consider this as an alternative to the development.
SPennoyer said, “I don’t feel this is the right plan for this property. I urge that the Board get an assessment of the open space development.”
CBranon said, “I don’t know what guideline or point system is available to truly evaluate the open space. There are no true guidelines in regulations to show to value this land. There is no section that really defines value in this section. Open space land developed on the outside of the development adds more value to the abutting land. The 45.1 acres on perimeter of the property, provides a good balance of the open space of the development. There are no sensitive species on site. I know this plan is an end product from previous plans with a lot more thought than in the previous plans. I appreciate people who volunteer in creating regulations. I don’t see anywhere in here that we haven’t met the open space regulation.”
GMitchell asked the Board, “Do you know what we think open space is? Do you know what SPennoyer and CIrvin mean by open space? I don’t think you do. Perhaps this is the time to go point to point and clear up the meaning of open space.”
SPennoyer said, “By going through the purpose of the open space development: I feel number 1 and 3 are not being met. This plan is not taking advantage of the open space by creating smaller lots. Have you considered creating pods?”
RMarshall said, “The Board has clear sense of everyone’s opinion and what the engineer has created.”
CBranon said, “I appreciate the open space development, but a majority of these lots range to 1.3 acres in size. They still have frontage requirements. With the geometry of the land, the density calculation is 31 lots. If you start doing pods, you take up more land and then less open space is available. This layout has a fair amount of road because it loops back on itself. Pods are a nice concept, with a cul-de-sac village setting, but it won’t give you more open space development. Open space regulations are not intended to discourage development instead they promote development with large acreage for open space locations. This development offers much preservation and open space development. We’ve look at nodes and pods and they weren’t something that would work for this
piece of land. It is very easy to look at a plan and say ‘why didn’t you do this or that’, but members have walked the land, and this is the best plan possible.”
GMitchell said, “I want to make one point about Dorr Way. It is not a road, it is a turnaround, and it doesn’t go through to Rogers Road.”
8:46 p.m. Public hearing closed.
Hearing no further testimony, RMarshall asked for a motion to close the public hearing. JFletcher motioned to close the public hearing. MBorden seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
RMarshall read, “The Board at this time is entering a deliberative session. The Board will not entertain any more information from the applicant, the abutters and the audience. We reserve the right to request any information we deem necessary. The Board will begin deliberations at 8:30 p.m. on March 11, 2012. RMarshall asked CBranon to have changes/corrections made to the plan available at that time. We are looking for 4 copies of the updated plans for the deliberative process, to be used as working documents.
KO’Connell asked CBranon if the plan on the tripod could be left for review. CBranon said he have copies at town office by Wednesday. RMarshall asked that the copies be put in the Planning Board’s mailbox.
8:51 p.m. CIP Review by PRenaud.
PRenaud has volunteered to chair the CIP process this year. He hopes to get a schedule of dates to the Board members so that they may do their department interviews. CIP discussions will be held on the 2nd Monday of month meetings. He would like the deadline for final report after hearings to be late September or early October.
He said he’d like to review the Master Plan and to show the correlation of certain items on the Master Plan and the CIP plan. The CIP fiscal analysis, including school board impact, will show how the Town is going to pay for the suggested CIP improvements. PRenaud will do spreadsheets for handouts. There are six areas to be surveyed and he will have more information for March 25 meeting and will assign areas for members to gather information at that time.
9:01 p.m. Final Land Use Map Review
RMarshall asked, “Is there any final input/changes for this map?” PRenaud said he had four items:
· CMRC 2012 easement isn’t on the map, contact CMRC:
· Carbee property easement (2012) isn’t on the map, contact Monadnock Conservancy:
· Seigars property should be zoned as industrial zone overlay
· 12.5 acres in center of town is not conservation land.
RMarshall will contact LMurphy to make corrections.
9:11 p.m. Development Constraints Map Review
PRenaud noted the spelling in text: correct the spelling of impedements to impediments
RMarshall will e-mail LMurphy to make correction.
RMarshall asked for any changes to the Impervious Surfaces map. There were none.
9:20 p.m. Community Planning Grant
The Community Planning Grant #1: We need to complete site plan review and subdivision regulation changes.
RMarshall has asked CIrvin, ConCom Chair, if the Planning Board could join the ConCom in their April 20th Roadside Roundup meeting, as we did last year, if we are accepted in the Community Planning Grant Round #2 grants. She said that would be fine. We would use that time to introduce the concept of a Neighborhood Heritage District, in some fashion, as part of our Round 2 grant (should we be accepted).
RMarshall said DTuomala, brought in final mylars for signatures, and checks for payment of fees for the Miner Subdivision. She has made the corrections to Note #11 as requested, also referencing note 13A. We will sign the plats after the meeting.
9:46 p.m. Mail Received:
1. Town of Greenfield Annual Report 2012
2. Legal Notice, Planning Board, City of Concord, NH Cell Tower application
9:50 p.m. Adjournment
MBorden motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
