Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
May 13, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, and AMoon
7:05 p.m. Minutes
JFletcher began reading the April 22, 2013 meeting minutes. No changes were made to the minutes. JFletcher motioned to accept the minutes as read. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
RMarshall advised the Planning Board that the NH Housing Finance Authority (NHHFA) and Plan NH (as part of their Vibrant Villages NH initiative) are looking for nominations for a Visualizing Density in NH project. Criteria: Mixed use development showing historical downtowns or neighborhoods, traditional town centers, residential neighborhoods, new or proposed village centers, neighborhoods or other development. He thinks Grunbeck’s development of the ‘Greenfield Meeting Place’ would be a good nomination for this award. We would be recognizing a local developer and the nomination would also bring recognition for Greenfield. The Planning Board agreed to the nomination. RMarshall will prepare and submit the entry.
RMarshall and PRenaud attended the OEP annual spring conference on May 11th.
RMarshall asked the Planning Board to review the proposed changes to the regulations for Subdivision and Site Plan Review. A few changes were made. He will bring changes to the May 20th meeting for final review before the public hearing.
7:32 pm Sawmill Estates Deliberations
GMitchell advised the Planning Board that he would be videotaping the deliberation.
RMarshall discussed the procedure for deliberation. He said that CBranon made a number of changes resulting from questions raised at the March 11th meeting and suggested that we allow him to present those changes. KO’Connell said, “We need to be careful not to take in new evidence – be sure the changes are responses to questions the Planning Board asked at our previous meeting.” JFletcher concurred that CBranon should present the changed/modified information, but the Planning Board should then discuss the changes after the presentation.
The Planning Board agreed that it would engage in an exchange of questions and answers with CBranon and the applicant in order to move the deliberations forward. RMarshall noted the need to address two significant issues tonight: the calculation of net developable area and the question of meaningful purpose.
CBranon presented the following:
Calculation of net developable area – It was suggested that roads were included in the open space calculation. CBranon’s research confirmed roads were used in the calculation of net developable area. They revised the calculations and found that the plan did not meet open space area requirements. The new gray hatched area (revised plat) represents 2.7 acres of net developable area to be added to open space. Revised net developable area is 49.07 acres, the minimum required to be designated as open space is 19.63 acres (40% of 49.07). With the revision of open space in the revised plat, the net developable area within open space is 19.76 acres.
This does not take benefit of Dorr Way as part of the developable area and CBranon is not sure the Planning Board is actually considering that.
Provision changes:
· Septic area in question on Lots 9 & 14 on page 11 and Lot 27 on page 18. Research of the state regulations revealed no restriction on septic overlapping slope and drainage easement areas. Plus, a 4,000 square area allows septic to be put anywhere in that location, so it is possible that the final septic placement will not in fact overlap the easement. Regardless, there appears to be no restriction that would apply.
· Driveway for Lot 9 coming off Dorr Way right-of-way. At the end of the previous meeting, it was agreed upon that this would be an appropriate location for the driveway. None of the improvements of Dorr Way will change this.
· Sight distance for each of the lots. The regulations have been changed to reference the AASHTO requirements. Under AASHTO requirements, this would be a “very low-volume local road”. (A single family home averages 9.57 trips per day, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual, 8th Edition. Multiplying by the lots in this plan provides an expectation of @270 vehicles/day. AASHTO designates very low-volume local roads as those with up to 400 vehicles/day.) A speed limit of 25-30 mph was suggested at the last meeting. AASHTO cites a requirement for minimum sight distance of 165’ for
very low-volume local roads with a speed limit of 30 mph. The plan retains the original sight distance of 200’ for each house, significantly exceeding this requirement.
· Every driveway’s sight distance has been newly re-evaluated by a design engineer in CBranon’s office. Each driveway is properly represented on the submitted plans. On Lot 22, the roadside grading has been adjusted to accommodate the sight line. On Lot 27, the grading has been pulled back on the left side and Lot 17 has been modified slightly. All of the driveways can accommodate a 200’ sight line.
· Road section vertical curve of 200’ has been omitted as the town doesn’t have a requirement for it.
· Well radius extending into slope and drainage easement. Research revealed no restrictions on well radii extending into slope or drainage easements.
· Revised Waiver Request: Appendix A – Street Standards. The waiver has been modified at the request of the Board to include the grade within an intersection. The revised waiver requests a grade of 8.2% ascending the hill for a distance of 2,500 +/- feet and a grade of 8.3% descending the hill for a distance of 1,815 +/- feet. The intersection on to Butterfield Drive is 8.3%; the applicant feels it meets the intent of the regulations. It’s a loop road and the intent is to prevent excess cuts and respect the town ordinances.
RMarshall introduced AMoon to the audience stating she has been doing her homework since her election in March. We are going to provide her the opportunity to participate. RMarshall asked GMitchell and CBranon if they had any comment on her participating in this review. Neither did.
JFletcher asked, “Are the changes substantial enough to warrant re-opening the public hearing?” PRenaud said he feels it borderline, but would really like not to have to do that. CBranon said, “Basically the open space got larger; that should be perceived as better.” RMarshall asked, “What criteria did you use to decide to add this land to the open space?” CBranon responded, “Meaningful open space was gained by adding this additional land (additional gray hatched shaded area). The open space that we are taking advantage of doesn’t have a lot of steep slopes, and in our opinion, our plan meets the town’s open space regulation. Almost half of this land, over 44 acres, is open space. The Intent was to put wetlands in open space so that wildlife will
migrate to those areas and the majority of open space is along the perimeter area of this development. Personally, we feel we are meeting the intent of the regulations for open space and are interested in where we are not addressing this regulation. This allows the most connectivity to the lots, as well as an amenity in terms of passive recreation for the public.”
RMarshall asked how the public would access this open land. CBranon said, “We haven’t provided a parking spot for the general public, but if there is a trail and the homeowners’ association allowed it, the public could have access.”
AMoon asked, how would a resident on an interior site access the open space area? CBranon said, “Most open space developments have a loop road and the interior lots would have access through Dorr Way or at the front of the development.”
JFletcher noted that with the new calculation of net developable area, the maximum density according to the Open Spaces Ordinance would be 24 lots, and the plan before us has 28 lots. CBranon and the applicant need to address this disparity – could change the lot dimensions and land in open space to get to 26 lots, or drop to 24. CBranon asked for time to assess this before responding.
RMarshall asked whether these responses to our questions from the last meeting warrant another public hearing. JFletcher said that the changes presented are adjustments rather than substantive changes to the plan and wouldn’t require a public hearing, nor would he think that decreasing the number of lots and putting more land into open space would require a public hearing. “But if we talk about increasing numbers of lots, that is a another ball game. I’d like to talk about wildlife corridors. I feel the Board needs outside input on the value for wildlife from a wildlife biologist.” PRenaud agreed, “I can’t say if this is adequate acreage for wildlife. I’m not qualified.”
JFletcher said, “Based on what he has done, I don’t believe we have to have a public hearing. But we need to vote on whether we need to open it.” Discussion ensued regarding how adding or decreasing the number of lots would impact this decision. KO’Connell said, “If you are tweaking the lots, no public hearing.” PRenaud suggested that RMarshall contact town counsel to determine if changes to the lot numbers and sizes would necessitate another public hearing. RMarshall agreed to consult with legal.
RMarshall asked the Board if they thought the information provided on net developable area was correct. PRenaud said, “It sounds corrects, but I would have to do my own figuring.” PRenaud confirmed the DES well radii information as correct.
PRenaud is still confused about Dorr Way. He sees it as a problem because it connects to Rogers Road. PRenaud thought from the last meeting it was agreed it would be needed as a turnaround for the cisterns.
RMarshall suggested that a final decision is needed on Dorr Way. JFletcher indicated that it makes sense from a planning viewpoint, as Dorr Way enables public access to Rogers Road in the future should some farsighted planner choose to leverage it. RMarshall commented that he prefers an easement stipulation for Dorr Way to losing it entirely. It would be a shame to lose that access by allowing the development to preclude the growth of the road. PRenaud said, “I don’t agree with anything that is being said here.”
CBranon noted that Dorr Way is not required for the subdivision in any way, and was included at the request of the Board, as well as the grading being revised throughout the subdivision to enable this access. (Without these changes, the land would be more than 5 feet out of vertical alignment for any potential future connection to Rogers Road.)
JFletcher motioned to keep Dorr Way as is, with no modification to what is on the plat as it stands right now. KO’Connell seconded.
PRenaud stated his objection to keeping Dorr Way at all. Following further discussion, JFletcher rescinded his motion.
AMoon noted that in addition to potential future uses of Dorr Way, the land as drawn provides access for the subdivision residents to access the open space at the top end of the plat. Without this access, all interior residents would only be able to access the open space from the common land at the entry to the plat.
AMoon motioned that Dorr Way be reserved as an easement, as designed on the plat, for access to open space and for all lawful uses as determined by the Planning Board. PRenaud seconded. RMarshall asked if the Board was ready to close discussion. PRenaud moved to close discussion. JFletcher seconded. Vote unanimous. RMarshall called for a vote on AMoon’s motion. Vote as follows: AMoon, JFletcher, PRenaud affirmative. KO’Connell opposed. Motion carried.
PRenaud asked what the length of the easement for the former Dorr Way should be. CBranon said it will be a standard hammerhead turnaround for the cisterns and the driveway to Lot 9 would be adequate at 150’.
PRenaud motioned that the former Dorr Way be used as a driveway access to Lot 9 to meet driveway regulations for a distance of +/- 150’. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous.
CBranon asked if all the slope and drainage easements need to be removed from the plat. AMoon said that without the easements against Lots 9 and 10 for slope and drainage, we retain access to open space but won’t be able to convert the primary easement to a road in the future. She suggested keeping the easements in place in order to preserve all future options.
JFletcher motioned to keep the slope and drainage easements as designed on Lots 9 & 10. AMoon seconded. Vote as follows: JFletcher, AMoon, and RMarshall affirmative. PRenaud and KO’Connell opposed. Motion carried.
AMoon questioned the small strip of open space behind Lot 19. It seems like wildlife would have a difficult time negotiating this area. CBranon said he tried to balance a number of areas on the open space, and noted that regulations do not say it has to be contiguous. GMitchell noted that the abutting lot is wooded in this area as well and in their opinion it is not likely that it could be developed, thus keeping a larger wildlife corridor through this area.
RMarshall said, “We’ve addressed the issue of the net developable area, but have we addressed the ‘meaningful purpose’ issue?” KO’Connell said the applicant has addressed it, but the Board hasn’t.
RMarshall read from the Open Space Development Ordinance, Section A: Purpose:
1. Allow for greater flexibility….RMarshall asked, “As you view this rendering, have they done this?” PRenaud, JFletcher and KO’Connell agreed that it was consistent with the intent of this paragraph.
2. Encourage the permanent preservation of land… JFletcher said, “Yes, he has followed the requirements of this paragraph.”
3. Maintained the land use pattern… RMarshall said, “With the exception of maybe one or two houses that will be seen from Route 31, rural character of the main artery is preserved.” PRenaud agreed.
4. Ensure residential development takes into consideration… KO’Connell agrees that the applicant is dealing with a lot of this paragraph.
5. Provide wildlife corridors connecting… JFletcher said, “I don’t know how much of this really connects with wildlife corridors. With what is left of open spaces, I can’t make that determination.” AMoon asked, “Do we know what kind of habitats are there now?” RMarshall responded, “CIrvin spoke to some of them, but no inventory has been done on the property.” PRenaud commented, “This area is a supporting landscape of a high priority wildlife area.”
6. Assure that density of development is no greater… All agreed the proposal has been in compliance to date, but this item cannot be assessed until the impact of the net developable land calculation is redressed.
Items #3 and #5 are still questions. PRenaud has concerns with the easements and feels that “As far as what we have before us now, the wetlands on Lots 18 and 19 are still a concern.”
PRenaud noted that some of the lots might need to be redesigned, or lot sizes changed or dropped. CBranon commented, “We looked at cluster housing and pods with this land, and this is the shortest road that we could come up with. For other elements in here, we had our wetlands scientist walk the property and, for the most part, he saw no wildlife corridors, deer yards…nothing speaking to wildlife jumped out at us. A lot of thought has been put in this project. 44 acres of open space, with wildlife in those open spaces. Wildlife will go where ever they want. Steep slopes are in the open space areas. Anyone who buys into the development must like what they see and it will keep within the rural character. Lots fit in and conform to the terrain. We have addressed all the
requirements.” CBranon said he would be looking at the calculations of the lot sizes.
JFletcher has the name of ecology expert, Jeff Littleton of Moosewood Ecology, LLC, who might serve as an expert on the wildlife questions we have. This firm was recommended by Monadnock Conservancy and the applicant can ask questions and speak to this. PRenaud said, “We need to speak to an ecologist after the changes to the lots are made.” CBranon said he has worked with the Monadnock Conservancy; they have very high standards. RMarshall said that perhaps the applicant might have another name for ecologist. The Board agreed that the applicant would be welcome to engage a distinct expert, and ideally the two experts could work together. In the interest of both time and expense, the Board would like to see the revised plan accounting for the new net developable area’s impact on the number
of lots before determining if a wildlife expert must be engaged.
JFletcher asked if the applicant is coming back with another proposal. CBranon said that they could bring back a revised proposal in 2 Board meetings, and agreed that the overall timeframe could be extended given that today was targeted as the final day.
RMarshall scheduled continued deliberations for June 24th at 8:00 p.m.
RMarshall moved to continue deliberations to June 24, 2013 at 8:00 p.m. AMoon seconded. Vote unanimous.
10:40 p.m. Mail Received:
· Southwest Region Planning Commission Brochure
· Department of Environmental Services, letter dated 4/24/2013 re: Shoreland Permit Application for 108 Wally Stone Lane, Greenfield, NH
· Application for Subdivision from Iain Guthrie, 400 New Boston Rd
· Greenfield Building Permits Y-T-D 2013 (2 pages)
· New Hampshire Town and City magazine
· New Hampshire Housing Authority – Copy of CPG2 Contract
· NH OEP invoice #697 2013 Spring Planning & Zoning Conference $60.00.
10:42 p.m. Adjournment
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
