Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
March 11, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, MBorden, SChicoine
7:10 p.m. Minutes:
SChicoine began reading the meeting minutes of February 25. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made. JFletcher moved to accept the minutes as amended. SChicoine seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
7:39 p.m. Master Plan-Land Use Section –LMurphy
She began going page by page noting changes/edits that the Board wanted to include.
· Page 4 Add conservation lands to the protected lands bullet.
· Page 5 has no changes.
· Page 6 Public and Private Investments Add this section as there may be such activity
in the future.
· Transportation Systems A Transportation Systems section was in the previous Master Plan. She will insert the numbers as soon as she gets the information.
· Remove the arterials or minor collectors sentence that is under Land Use and put it in Transportation section.
· Utilities and Public Service-PSNH supplies it. L is waiting for PSNH to supply the 3-phase number for the Master Plan.
· Page 7 Water and Sewer LMurphy will get the number of properties for public sewer from CShaw
· Page 8 Solid Waste Insert “public” before “curbside collection program in Greenfield
Has the hazardous waste program with Keene been cancelled? LMurphy will check with APatt about this.
· Page 9 A Brief History change the number of years from 212 to 250.
· Page 10 Greenfield’s Land Use Exempt properties. Change North Pack to Wapack National Wildlife Refuge.
· Page 11Exempt – Remove Lyris and leave Plowshare Farm (duplication).
· Page 12 Table and Chart -Table on page 12 was created by using assessor’s records from information in 2003. So the comparison for 2012 is based on the same information and reflects accurate changes. MBorden said with more accurate surveying, you can either gain or lose land from what the landowner might believe is accurate.Add transportation to the table to match the pie chart to be consistent.
LMurphy will recheck the numbers in the chart as they appear to be inaccurate. JFletcher suggested to drop the second decimal place on the calculations.
· Page 13 Paragraph 4, insert (up to $5,000 per year) after Conservation Commission.
· Page 14 Chart is not meant to be used for total acreage. It is simply informational as several categories overlap and this explained in paragraph after chart. Last paragraph to read, “Through such advanced knowledge of development potential…..”
LMurphy added Regulatory Limitations to Development to the report as a means of explanation of the newer regulations and ordinance added by the Town.
RMarshall asked for final approval deadline. LMurphy said she should have it by the end of the week. RMarshall asked, “Will we be ready to bring this to Board for review and final action on 3/25?” LMurphy said, “Yes and the maps will also be ready.”
LMurphy has finished the model ordinance for surface Water Protection and is working on the Heritage Commission Ordinance as well and that will conclude our contract with SWRPC for the Community Planning Grant, Round #1 Grant.
8:25 pm Thanks to outgoing member Mike Borden
RMarshall thanked MBorden for serving as a board member as this is his last session. He also congratulated him on the CEO position with the town. MBorden said he has presented to Select Board a dilapidated building regulation and feels that the Select Board will be adopt my recommendations. He will continue to serve as needed as an alternate.
8:30 p.m. Sawmill Estates Deliberations
RMarshall thanked CBranon for the updated plans for the deliberative session.
SChicoine said, “I know the Subdivision Regulations and Open Space Development Zoning Ordinance have been changed since the 2007 application. Is this the first Open Space Development application that has come before the Board since the Subdivision Regulations were amended in 2010 and the 2010changes to the Open Space Development Zoning Ordinance were approved? The Board responded, “Yes.”
SChicoine said we need to more formally address the 65 day extension, a date, a time, something that the applicant will agree to. RMarshall commented that he would hate to set a deadline that does not enable us to get all the information that we need. PRenaud said that we can appeal to the Select Board for a one 90 day extension if we need it.
RMarshall asked GMitchell if he felt that a definite date will be reasonable to help conclude this process. CBranon responded that he’d suggest a 60 day deadline, with the Board retaining the right to petition the Select Board for the 90 day extension if needed. RMarshall offered a date of 5/13/2013 as a deadline.
SChicoine motioned to establish a Sawmill Estates deadline for 5/13/2013 and to reserve the right to petition the Select Board for 90 day extension if needed. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
MBorden asked, “Do we have any deficiencies that have to be addressed?”
SChicoine said I have a list of deficiencies from previous meetings that need to be addressed:
· What is the purpose of the temporary turn-around easement near the end of Dorr Way? CBranon said “To be used during the construction phase.”
· During Phase 1 would that section of Butterfield Drive and all the utilities in that section be constructed to final specifications? CBranon said “Yes, except there would be no
wearing coat on the road.”
· Page 1 of the Plat, Note 17. There is no Section V.L. in the current Subdivision Regulations. The note should refer to the Greenfield Driveway Regulations. To be corrected.
· Page 7 of the Plat, The 25' wetlands buffer is not shown at the north end of Lot 20. The Board felt it does not need to be shown in that location.
· Page 9 of the Plat, The well radii and septic areas are not shown. CBranon will add well radii and septic area the whole page.
· Page 11 of the Plat, The septic area for Lot 29 which was located in a detention basin has been moved, but no test pit data is shown. To be corrected
· In 2007 the Net Developable Area was calculated by subtracting Wetlands and a 25' buffer. Page 37 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that land not suitable for onsite sewage disposal be subtracted when calculating the Net Developable Area
· Page 14 of the Zoning Ordinance refers to a 75' Wetlands buffer. Also in 2007, the proposed roads were apparently included when the amount of Open Space was calculated. CBranon will do new calculations.
· The septic areas for some lots (Lots 9 & 14 on page 11, and Lot 27 on page 13) are at least partially located in slope and drainage easement areas. Is that OK? This needs to be discussed.
· The septic area for Lot 1 on page 9 is shown as extending under the driveway. Is that OK? The Board agrees that is acceptable.
· On page 9, Lots 3 and 4 are shown as having a detention basin within the 75' well radius. Some other lots have slope/drainage easements within the 75' well radius. Is that OK? This needs to be discussed.
· Some test pits are shown on the plans as being outside the designated septic areas.
(Lots 22, 24, & 27). The Board agrees that is acceptable per CBranon’s explanation.
· Driveway Regulations Section III, A. on page 2 states that the regulations apply to
driveways on private roads so wouldn’t the driveway approvals be handled as if the driveways were off a class V road? This needs to be discussed.
· Do the slopes of the driveways for Lot 1 shown on page 9 and Lot 14 on page 14 need
to be included on the plans since they are near the 12% maximum grade? The Board decided that the exact slope figures do not have to be shown.
· On page 13 the preferred driveway location for Lot 9 is shown as joining Dorr Way past
the turn-around for the cistern. Is there a problem with that? CBranon will present an alternate plan.
· Do the lists in the upper and lower left hand corners of page 16 of the plats labeled “Road Design Requirements” match the requirements listed in Table #1 of the Subdivision Regulations as shown on page Appendix A-5? If not, does the applicant need any additional waivers? (2% maximum grade within 100 feet of intersection and centerline radius 200') (also lists a vertical curveof 200') Needs to be addressed.
· Corrections to notes on Front Page of Plat:
Note 9, remove dredge and fill #, add the correct AOT number.
Note 11, referred to the old subdivision regulations, corrected.
Note 16 referred to old subdivision regulations, set benchmarks, corrected.
Note 19, removed.
· Page 14 of the Plat - the title in the upper right hand corner was corrected.
· Page 19 of the Plat - the reference to Mason Fire Dept was corrected
· Peavey Way has been changed to Dorr Way on all the plans.
KO’Connell said these plans are based on work done for a previous subdivision which included wetlands. Those plans went before the Board of Adjustment for a wetlands buffer incursion, a Special Exception. The decision by Board of Adjustment should be referenced on the plat. (Lot 18, page 8.) CBranon said zoning runs with the land. KO’Connell agreed, but said the decision needs to be reflected on the plat.
JFletcher said, “There is a proposed access for a utility easement, what is that for? On Page 6, Lot 19 shows as a common driveway, so is that why the utility easement is needed?
SChicoine asked, “What is the purpose of the temporary easement at the end of Dorr Way, page 13?” CBranon said, “Dorr Way is only proposed as a temporary easement.”
KO’Connell said a general concern in a conventional subdivision is that you have more area to play, but with an open space subdivision it is more defined. RMarshall asked, “If you can design a septic system, then why would we change it.” SChicoine agreed and commented, “The state approved the plan with the septic area in a retention basin, the previous plan had a septic plan within a 75’ well radius, so this is something that should be left as is.”
SChicoine noted that on page 9, Lot 1, the septic area goes under the driveway. CBranon said that is allowed. SChicoine said the previous Greenfield regulations didn’t allow it. MBorden commented, “Greenfield had stricter regulations than the state and then we backed off of that.
KO’Connell commented only a chamber system can go under a driveway. CBranon said “The driveway grading on Lot 1 is specifically shown to prove that we can get access to it, but doesn’t necessarily mean that the driveway will go in that exact position. Any driveway will have to go before the Board for approval.”
It was noted that CBranon was responding to questions that were being presented to the Board. RMarshall accepted the responsibility to have CBranon answer some of the questions. He said SChicoine’s questions are to the Board and if Board can’t answer, then SChicoine should ask RMarshall to ask the question to the applicant.
PRenaud said the engineering report from Keach in 2007 had concerns about the drainage within the 75’ well radius. SChicoine said, “Do we have a regulation or state regulation concerning this?”
RMarshall said no one on the Board could answer this question. PRenaud said we should reserve this for an engineering consultant by asking targeted questions, instead of a blanket questions. SChicoine asked, “Is it ok to have a retention basin slope and drainage easements within the 75’ well radius?” PRenaud said “It looks like Lots 2, 3, 4 have that concern.”
SChicoine said some test pits are outside of designation areas - lots 22, 24, 27. Are these ok? MBorden said, “No.” RMarshall asked “On page 8, lot 24 shows the pit within the septic area, test pit #9, but on page 10 it shows test pit #9 outside the 4000’ square feet. Why the difference/”
CBranon explained that the subdivision plans are drawn to 100% scale, and there is fluctuation on the plans where the test pits are shown because the other pages are at a smaller scale.
SChicoine asked if he could present a question for applicant. Board was ok with SChicoine asking the applicant. “During Phase 1 with that section of Butterfield Drive, will all the utilities be constructed as indicated?” CBranon responded, “That is a bonding issue. Phase one will be completed in its entirety and the underground utilities will have to inspected in order to service the other lots.”
SChicoine began the discussion on how the driveway would be approved. MBorden said his understanding about the driveways is that the town would have to be part of the process with an engineer overseeing the road construction to make sure it was built to design specs. Driveway cuts would not be overseen by the town road agent, because its’ not a town road. The CEO for the town would be the inspector. SChicoine read Section III. General Provisions A. RMarshall said a reason for the inclusion of the supervisor of DPW is a public safety issue and as well as maintenance of the road. The DPW would be the one to inspect the road.
KO’Connell said we are dealing with a development plan. That is why it is the open space ordinance. MBorden asked, “Should the engineering of this road include the cuts, etc.?”
PRenaud said, “There are some line of sight problems with this development. Some of the sight distances are rather long. An engineer will have to determine the line of sight, where frontage is involved with the driveways.”
RMarshall asked, “Why do you feel an outside engineer has to make these determinations?” PRenaud said, “We have to consider the engineers report because we could put the Board and the town in a position where we would have to grant waivers due to hardship. Safety issues are really a major concern.” RMarshall asked, “Are you asking for an engineering study to meet the ASTRO standards?”
MBorden said, “The Keach report reference line of sight issues.”
RMarshall asked if driveways can be constructed on each of these lots?” MBorden said, “my thoughts are that this is an engineered road and that it is different from a normal town subdivision. Here is an engineered road that has relatively specific areas where a driveway is going to fall, so I think, on the smaller lots the driveway would have to go in a specific area.” RMarshall said, “So you want the driveways located on all the lots? To get that question answered, the Board needs an outside consultant.” PRenaud asked, “Can any driveway be put in, not specifically the proposed locations on the plot? Do we need approved driveway designs on this plan, horizontal and vertical curves as well?”
SChicoine said, “Our driveway regulation requires conformity with safe sight requirements of the state of NH and AASHTO.”
JFletcher said, “Are there similar numbers from DOT. JFletcher asked, “Will the town have any say over the 25 mph limit?” This was not determined.
Page 13 Lot 9 shows a preferred driveway location applicants plan at the end of the road in the edge of shaded area into Butterfield Road, is this a gravel area to the lot? I believe, driveways are to open onto a road. MBorden believes the road would have to be extended to catch that driveway. The Board feels that Dorr Way shouldbe extended beyond the driveway to Lot 9.
SChicoine said, “On lots 1 and 14 there is 12% maximum grade for a driveway. PRenaud said we can waive some or all the driveway regulations. Do we need a more specific grade on these driveways or do we accept the approximate grade?
MBorden said sight distances appear in the Keach report (Page 4). It states full requirements of section 5 j 1 of subdivision regulations and confirms sufficient sight distance of each location. The plan hasn’t changed in that scope, so Keach recommended this, so we should have that question addressedaddressed.
CBranon asked, “Would the Board like to see sight distances. We felt we have addressed that. I don’t think the Board needs to hire the consultant to figure sight distances. I would like the opportunity to provide the information which will allow this process to go more smoothly.”
GMitchell said, “We addressed Dorr Way in the public session. We said the driveway on Lot 9 has had the scope narrowed down and I wished that I had videotaped the session, I came into the Board in the beginning and asked the Board what they wanted and it appears things are being changed.
RMarshall said, “You took the old application and copy and pasted it. Using the Keach report is to your benefit.”
JFletcher commented, “During the public hearing, we did not make a decision on Dorr Way.”
PRenaud feels that there are waivers that need to be asked for, one for the slope going from 8% to 8.3%, one for the maximum grade of 2.0% within a 100’ of intersection, and one for Butterfield Road, at the intersection, where a 4% grade is noted on the plan.” He also commented that Dorr Way is shown on the map as a road, but now he is hearing it as a turn around. He feels he can’t approve the subdivision with a dead end road that is over 600’ because it needs a waiver. The length is 800’.
PRenaud read Appendix A Subdivison Regulations, Section III, B & C, in reference to the maximum length of this grade on a 4500’ road. This requires a separate waiver or be factored into the waiver they are asking for. A grade greater than 6% could be a compound waiver request, or 3 separate waivers. MBorden said the outside consultant report (Keach 2007 report) appears to not be opposed to us granting the waiver for 8.35 grade. PRenaud asked MBorden, if was he asked about b & c, which are the bigger concern for me. MBorden said, “I personally don’t have an issue with what is involved with the cuts and fills. If you try to knock it down, it will change everything.”
PRenaud said “The way the regulation is written, we can’t waive any of this if you require they meet the exact requirements.”
MBorden said, “My major concern is the driveways with line of sight and engineered road. The culverts need to be installed and the installation needs to be addressed by the Board and not the road agent. Keach’s report addressed the driveway culverts with 15” aprons.
RMarshall said, “If we give that information to the applicant, can we have the applicant supply this to the plans?”
CBranon said that the Keach report provided us with an exercise that showed the driveway locations, with line of sight, slope.
PRenaud said, “If this exercise was done, where is it?” CBranon said, “I think that it could be done on each lot, but I’m not sure how and when it should be done again. The driveway cuts and slopes meet your regulations. I don’t believe that the exercise for line of sights have been done for this Board.” RMarshall asked the Board if this exercise would address the Board’s concerns about the line of sight issues.?” SChicoine commented, “I want the Board to do whatever has to be done about the line of sight and not to have MBorden or DPW agent do it.”
SChicoine has an issue with page 16. “On left side, it says road design requirements and they don’t match up without new subdivision regulations on table 1 on page 85. The plan mentions vertical curves of 200’ and we have a waiver request for under 200’. PRenaud brought up where Butterfield Drive comes back on itself, one slope is 8% and one is 2%. He assumes that there is a safety issue.”
RMarshall said our problem is that we are generating these questions and the applicant may need an opportunity to answer them or participate. We need to enable the applicant to respond. JFletcher said, “I’d like to hear from the applicant, whether they answer all the questions or one by one. That is not to say that we can’t go elsewhere to get answers.”
RMarshall asked Board, “Can I ask the applicant questions?” The Board agreed to allow the applicant to answer questions.
Slope issues
Response from CBranon. PRenaud brings up a good point about the intersections in that they do require a waiver. We are prepared to meet the 3% requirement for Butterfield Drive. 3% is a safe slope but it is more than the 2% you require. The slope changes at 140’ to 3%. SChicoine asked, “Isn’t Butterfield Drive at 8% coming down the hill?” CBranon said his interpretation is that the stopping area condition is more critical. PRenaud asked, “Is Butterfield Drive going to be a two way road all the way around?” CBranon said, “Yes.”
RMarshall questioned if Dorr Way will be need a waiver as it is around 800’ long and is a dead end. Our regulations say it’s a road if over 600’. So which is it, a road or a turnaround with a driveway to a lot?
PRenaud said the end of Dorr Way will be used as a turnaround for the cisterns and don’t we have specs for turnarounds? CBranon said we have a 14’ radius in the turnaround. MBorden said the original thought was that the road was going to phased, but the cisterns have to have access from the get-go.
RMarshall asked Board members, “Would you be in agreement if the applicant eliminated the design for the turnaround to the cisterns and the design drawings for the road, but leave the easement in place for future development and extend the road enough to get to the mouth of the driveway for that lot?” PRenaud, KO’Connell, JFletcher, MBorden, and SChicoine all in agreement that this would be ok.
RMarshall identified the following unresolved questions:
· Are retention basins and slope easements within septic areas acceptable?
· Can CBranon prepare a demonstration of lines of sight for driveways consistent with the driveway regulation and State and AASHTO regulations?
· Need, written request for each waiver (2% and 8% grade waivers) for grades and for any other waiver that might be needed.
JFletcher questioned the calculation of net developable area. He wanted to know if steep slopes and wetland areas were removed from the calculations, if the proposal would meet the requirements of the open space ordinance?
SChicoine said, “I don’t believe the calculations are in compliance with the current zoning ordinance. You can’t have on-site sewage disposal within 75 feet of a wetland. He read the open space development of the zoning ordinance, (Page 37 c 3) definition and the net developable areas, (Page 14, #2) of zoning ordinance definition. RMarshall said you are saying 50’ has to be added to the 25’ that they’ve already calculated for open space. CBranon said, “I don’t want to acknowledge that because I can’t, but I have to revise the calculation.” JFletcher said, “Yes, that would be to your advantage.”
SChicoine said the roadway was included as open space in the previous calculation. COglvie said that in her review. CBranon said he will look at that.
CBranon asked, “With Dorr Way not a part of this project, do we take that out of the net developable space?”
PRenaud said the calculation will actually put this below the open space requirement.
JFletcher said get the calculations done including the Dorr Way. GMitchell said the previous Board gave us directions for bigger lots, not smaller ones. Now we are now getting a lot of the feeling of this Board that is contrary to the original request. We’ll get the calculations done. If you want to see a basic subdivision, you might have a copy of that here.
PRenaud said, “At next deliberation, let’s get to the open space ordinance. Also let’s keep the basic subdivision on the back burner.”
GMitchell said he is seeing now that people don’t want to have open space. RMarshall said “Due to the late hour, let’s have no further conversations tonight and let’s work towards a common outcome for all.”
Deliberations will reconvene on April 8 at 7:30 p.m.
11:15 p.m. Mail received:
1. Training Institute Education Center OSHA New England brochure – 2013 OSHA safety & health courses schedule
2. Town of Greenfield Cash Receipt for Miner Major Subdivision Fees - $840.00
3. Greenfield Building Permits 2013
4. Southwest Region Planning Commission CPG Round #1 Invoice dated 3/1/2013 $1468.54
5. Pamela D. Coughlin, Register Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds Invoice dated 3/1/2013 - $74.00
6. Todd Land Use Consultants, LLC Plat of Conservation Easement, Land of Crotched Mountain Foundation, Crotched Mountain Road, Bennington, Francestown, Greenfield, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire
11:30 p.m. Adjournment
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
