Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
May 20, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, PRenaud, KO’Connell, RWimpory, AMoon
7:00 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the May 9, 2013 Sitewalk meeting minutes. Changes were made to improve clarity but no substantive changes were made. The minutes were accepted as amended by unanimous vote.
PRenaud began reading the May 12, 2013 meeting minutes. Changes were made to the minutes to improve clarity and accuracy. One substantive change was made to line 232. The sentence now reads, “This area is a supporting landscape of a high priority wildlife area according to the NH Wildlife Action Plan.” KO’Connell motioned to accept the minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
RMarshall commented that a workshop was held last weekend with new Neighborhood Heritage Advisory Committee members. MStier and LMurphy attended this workshop and offered a lot of information to the members. A second meeting is scheduled for May 29th at 7pm at the Library. The committee members will review the results of the Planning Board Vision Survey from 2012.
7:30 p.m. Waterhouse Public Hearing
RMarshall passed around the sign-up sheet for the public. Audience members: PWaterhouse, TQuackenbush, DAnderson, MBeard, MGrant, SClark, MBorden, LWhite.
RMarshall advised the Planning Board that two sets of the applications came in, with the second set having additional supporting documentation. As the second set was more complete, it will be the primary reference for discussion. He noted that a letter from CEO MBorden and a copy of the State approval for the septic system were attached to the application. Driveway permits have also been obtained.
The waiver letter was read into the record. The following waivers have been requested:
Section VIII – Submission Requirements
· Subsection A
o Item 6: Only existing and proposed structures located within the relevant area of the site have been noted on the plat. Structures on abutting properties have not been noted.
o Item 11: Existing landscaping and proposed changes have been noted on the plat, but a specific landscape plan has not been prepared. Incremental screening is not planned.
o Item 13: No wetlands or natural water features are within the land relevant for this site plan (i.e. the house and yard/playyard areas). Water features beyond that scope of land have not been identified.
o Item 14: Approximate grade and contour data has been provided based on best knowledge and observation. “USGS data with spot elevations and base flood elevations where appropriate” (as called for in the regulation) has not been referenced.
· Subsection B
o Item 3: Storm water drainage will be via sheet flow, a stormwater drainage system is not part of the plan.
The Board went through the Site Plan Review Checklist. It was noted that the application indicates that there are no recreational areas on the plat, but the plat does indeed include a recreational area for the children. BMarshall noted that the parking space sizes need to be checked as the plat references the Wilton code rather than the Greenfield regulations. This needs to be corrected.
The letter from CEO MBorden dated April 29, 2013 states that a second primary egress is needed from the second floor, smoke detectors are needed in each room children will be in, and fire pulls and CO monitors are needed on each floor.
KO’Connell motioned to accept the application. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
8:05 p.m. PWaterhouse Public Hearing
Chairman Marshall asked if any board member needed to recuse themselves. Hearing none, he proceeded to explain the rules for the public hearing. He noted that he had requested the Greenfield Fire Chief and Code Enforcement Officer to attend this hearing and thanked them for their participation.
PWaterhouse thanked all who have come and gave the reasons for this application. With Pine Hill losing their space in Peterborough, 53 families are losing child care. They’ve tried to secure alternate space in Peterborough with no success. They considered Nora’s Depot, but the owner wanted to sell rather than lease and they didn’t feel they have enough time to follow that course. She is proposing to use her home located at 608 Forest Road for the newly renamed A Child’s Nature childcare facility.
She then described the application. A Child’s Nature will rent 2/3 of the house and 1/3 will be rented by a private tenant. There will be major construction of a new parking area for the site. She has a state permit for a new road cut. There will be a fenced in area behind the house for outdoor activity. This has been moved further back than shown on the plat in response to the State DHHS’s site visit and recommendations for licensing approval. They need to maintain 50 feet per child for the play area. While they may need to cut some trees, it is their intent to minimize any such cutting and allow trees within the fenced area.
RWimpory asked, “How many toilets are there?” PWaterhouse replied, “Two are needed. We comply.” RWimpory asked, “What about lead paint?” PWaterhouse said, “We will need to have it tested, and take what steps are needed after that.” RWimpory asked, “The second floor egress, where is it?” PWaterhouse said, “One is being built.” Discussion clarified that the second floor egress must be a door not a window exit to qualify as a primary egress and that the external stairway must be protected, i.e. must be roofed. The question was raised as to whether A Child’s Nature would qualify as a school and needed to meet those requirements. PWaterhouse responded, “No, it is a child care center – managed by the
Department of Health and Human Services, not the Department of Education.”
AMoon asked, “Have you begun the internal changes?” PWaterhouse replied that they have not. RMarshall asked the Fire Chief if he had any recommendations. LWhite responded, that he has faith in the state regulations. If they are met, he wouldn’t anticipate having any incremental requirements or concerns. LWhite said, “We have the ability to request the State Fire Marshall to come in and look at the place.”
MBorden noted that there are different requirements for those that can’t help themselves. The criteria for how many adults are required to supervise the requisite numbers and ages of children are met. It is PWaterhouse’s responsibility to staff her place adequately. Every window meets egress standards. The second floor will have window limiters to prevent children from opening the windows beyond 4 inches, but any adult will be able to open the windows should need arise. If she meets the requirements they’ve laid out, he feels confident that she can do this.
RMarshall asked if anything would be gained if the State Fire Marshal were to walk through the house – likely before and after alternations. MBorden agreed that a beforehand inspection should be done by State Fire Marshal, but felt that he and LWhite could then inspect with an eye to fulfillment of any recommendations made by the State Fire Marshall. RMarshall asked MBorden if any other issues have come to mind since you wrote your note. MBorden said, “I’ve been in the house, seen the kitchen and noted that an exhaust fan is needed. Nothing else comes to mind.”
KO’Connell asked if the fire alarm pull station would be hard wired into the fire station. MBorden responded, “No it would have to go to the call center. It doesn’t have to be a system tied into any central monitoring system. I haven’t found anything that requires that, but it is not a bad direction to go.” LWhite was asked about our potential response time for a fire. He replied that there are not many firefighters in town during the day, but the primary concern is getting the kids out and that’s the teachers’ main role in that scenario. As long as that happens, the building isn’t a major concern.
MBorden said that items required before children can enter the building are: two forms of egress from the second floor and all the smoke detectors and fire alarm systems in and operational.
RWimpory noted that prior to April 22, 2010 many building contractors did not follow lead abatement requirements. He advised PWaterhouse to make sure any contractor hired is certified for lead paint removal.
AMoon asked MBorden, “Does the fenced in play area meet our requirements?” He said, “Yes, it does.” RMarshall asked, “Is there a fence around the old barn area?” PWaterhouse said no, as that would be the tenant’s area and the kids can’t get there. RMarshall said he feels there should be something to prevent both child care center children and the tenant’s kids from getting to the barn area.
RWimpory asked if this would be an expected school bus stop. PWaterhouse replied, “Yes, the school bus stops in front the house now for the tenant’s children.” The potential of children taking the bus here for after school care at the child care center was also noted. The current plan would have the bus stop at the old driveway (which will no longer be there) for the tenant’s children to move directly from the street to the unfenced portion of the yard and their residence. Child care center children would need to be met and walked around the front of the house to get into the fenced portion of the yard and thence the front door of the house. AMoon asked if they have checked with the Conval bus company to see if they will drop off at an unofficial spot. PWaterhouse will check, but
doesn’t believe this is an issue.
KO’Connell asked about the decking on the porch as he noted some soft spots. MBorden said, “Yes, they are going to fix the decking and the front stairway as well.”
RWimpory suggested PWaterhouse be well versed on the NH Landlord Tenant Act, should any tensions arise with the private tenant.
8:38 p.m. Public Discussion
MGrant asked where most of the children come from. PWaterhouse said, “Peterborough, Keene, our philosophy allows children from everywhere. They come individually. We are open 6:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Children generally begin arriving by 7 a.m. and leave by 5:30 p.m. We have staggered arriving and leaving times throughout the day.”
MGrant has a concern about handicapped children using a wheelchair or walker – how would they get out in an emergency. PWaterhouse said, “We carry them.” MGrant asked, “Is that OK with the child care licensing board?” PWaterhouse said, “The child care licensing board has tentatively agreed to use of the first floor for handicapped children and only 3-6 year olds will be on the second floor. But if we had an older child who was handicapped, we would carry them. That’s how we handle it today at Pine Hill.”
MGrant said, “The lead paint is a concern of mine. As a landlord for many years, we could not have children of a certain age unless it was certified that it was completely clear of lead. Is that a requirement of the licensing board? As a parent I would be very concerned.” PWaterhouse said, “The parents are concerned and we are working with them to see how we can work out this issue. The licensing board has provided suggestions on how to address it.”
MGrant noted that the present tenants were unable to attend tonight, wondering what they would need to know as they weren’t sent a certified notice. PWaterhouse said she has had many conversations with the tenants about the child care center and made them aware of this public hearing.
PRenaud commented that as a Board we really don’t have any concerns about the landlord/tenant relationship. RMarshall asked if there were any further questions from the public. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
8:46 p.m. Deliberations
RMarshall stated, “We reserve the right to ask any questions of applicant or experts in the room to give evidence to help the Board to arrive at their conclusion. There is no further input from the public.”
AMoon asked PWaterhouse to draw the new playground area on plat. She did so.
PRenaud asked PWaterhouse, “Taking children to and from this enclosure, will they always be accompanied by employees?” PWaterhouse responded that the children hold on to a rope. PRenaud asked what happens if a child bolts out the front door. PWaterhouse said that they would be bolting into the fenced area and would be retrieved by a teacher. PRenaud expressed a concern about the rock steps and two uneven steps leading from the kitchen to the backyard, that when wet they could cause a fall.
PWaterhouse said the total number of children is 40 because there are only two toilets. If they take 60 children, then they would have to add a third bathroom. PWaterhouse said that they just did enrollment and about 2/3 of their current enrollment will be coming with them to the new location.
RWimpory said, “If the State Fire Marshal and licensing board come in and say that you please them, you are in good shape.” PWaterhouse said that the health, safety, and Fire Marshal inspections must be completed before the license can be issued. RMarshall asked if the Planning Board could expect documentation from the State Fire Marshal. PWaterhouse said that the licensing application will have the State Fire Marshall inspection documentation with it.
MBorden said, “Whenever a child care facility is licensed, I get a copy of that approved license. A copy of the license goes in the property file.” He agreed that the Planning Board could have a copy of the license for the site file as well. RMarshall asked, “When does the Fire Marshal sign off?” PWaterhouse said, “When all the changes and requests are done.” RMarshall said, “This is a big deal for me. Putting 40 children in an old, old building… public safety is a top priority. Lead paint is a big thing. I am not happy putting plastic over three windows and only having one window as air flow. I feel that experts need to make recommendations, recommendations need to be done, and then the experts sign off on it. That is what I need to
see.”
PRenaud said, “Section 7:I requires the parking area have solid or nearly solid vegetation and that doesn’t appear to be being done. This is something we need to consider at the parking area. That area will be lit during the winter months, and it may be a detriment to the abutters.”
RMarshall said there is no screening of the parking lot along the Route 31 side, just a stone wall and some mature trees. On the abutter’s side there are no trees, just a stone wall. RMarshall asked PWaterhouse the height of that wall. PWaterhouse responded that it’s a 5 foot wall. PRenaud commented that our regulation reads that there should be some vegetation or fencing to provide privacy from and for the abutters.
AMoon suggested that the lack of screening may in this case be good as it would assure a clear line of site for vehicles entering and leaving the parking lot. RMarshall asked about the abutter’s side of the parking lot. KO’Connell said the abutters can’t be too concerned about the landscaping on the abutters’ side as they aren’t in attendance.
PRenaud asked regarding the new play area: “Does the state have a concern with the trees? How many trees are near the play area? Are any diseased? I would like the trees around and within the play area to be looked at by an arborist.”
RWimpory asked, “How often are the trees to be inspected? This will change over time and we need to be cautious of that. State will come in and check the fenced area as part of their review, and then if there are any problematic limbs they could recommend removal.” PWaterhouse responded, “Licensing visits are once a year, and part of their job is to cite us if we have failed in our job. There is oversight and we are responsible. Health and safety of the children is paramount.”
RWimpory strongly suggested PWaterhouse look into insurance and make sure that day care center usage is covered properly.
KO’Connell noted there is no plan for lighting on the plat, but it should be all downward. The applicant needs to know this.
RMarshall said, “Clearly this activity is allowed in this zone. There are no abutter or neighborhood objections. Questions about public safety issues, trees, branches, lead paint, fire protection and security, number of children, lighting, drainage tenants, employees, and the parking area all appear well laid out and sufficient.”
RMarshall commented that there appear to be enough concerns that a conditional approval might be warranted. He feels that inspection by the State Fire Marshal should be a condition.
PRenaud asked to do the waiver requests first. The waivers were individually reviewed and agreed upon by the Board. PRenaud motioned to grant all 5 waivers as requested by the applicant. KO’Connell seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
KO’Connell motioned to approve the application subject to the following conditions:
· Approval of DHHS license for day care center.
· Installation and inspection by the CEO of primary means of egress from 2nd floor, fire alarms and fire pull on 2nd floor, smoke detectors in every room that children are in, and CO detectors on each floor.
· All elements to be completed satisfactorily for a Certificate of Occupancy by the CEO.
· Recommendation of approval by the State Fire Marshal and subsequent inspections by Fire Marshal/designee.
· Safety inspection of the fenced in play area.
PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
10:10 p.m. CIP Report
PRenaud reported he has received info from AMoon, but hasn’t had time to review it. He will be mailing the packets out to department heads, with a memo, worksheets, and last year’s spreadsheet by May 29th. If any changes are made, he will advise the Board. Board members are to meet after June 1st with dept heads. All data is to be returned by July 22nd to PRenaud for summarization and presentation.
10:05 p.m. Review of Changes to Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regs/Checklist
Site Plan Review page 4, Section VII:F & VII:G reference requirements in Section VIII of Subdivision Regulations – both references should be to Section VI.
Site Plan Review page 2, Section V paragraph 2 references “Greenfield’s Administrative Assistant”. This should be changed to “Greenfield’s Town Administrator”.
AMoon found a great reference website called NH Citizen Planners (www.nhcitizenplanners.org) with training videos, photos, links, and references. It is a great tool for the Planning Board to learn from other towns about their experiences with Open Space Development and other Planning Board matters.
10:15 p.m. Mail Received
Invoice from Belletetes Southfield Lane LLC, amt $489.50
Copy of Town Hall Rental Contract for Planning Board, dated 5/18/2013
New Hampshire Housing Meeting the Workforce Housing Challenge, June 2010 book
10:30 p.m. Adjournment
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. RWimpory seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
