Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
June 10, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, MBorden, SChicoine, AMoon
7:00 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the May 20, 2013 meeting minutes. No substantive changes were made.
7:25 p.m. Mail Received:
1. Cash Receipt copy of SPR – PWaterhouse, ck #7147
2. SWRPC Invite for Annual Meeting 6/25/2013
3. SWRPC invoice #6202, amount $2826.69
4. 6 certified notices for IGuthrie Public Hearing
5. Proposed Capital Project – Preliminary Worksheet-Tax Collector
6. Greenfield Building Permits 2013 Y-T-D
7. Copy of invoice from Belletetes Southfield Lane LLC, amount $489.50
8. Invoice from Ledger-Transcript Planning Board for legal notices, amount $227.01
9. Town of Greenfield, listing of various dept. heads & telephone numbers
7:30 p.m. Public hearing on changes in Site Plan Review, Subdivision, and Driveway Regulations
RMarshall opened the public hearing and read the protocol and rules for public hearings.
RMarshall reviewed the proposed Site Plan Review Regulation changes, as published in the notice for the public, providing opportunities for the public and the Board to comment. There were no questions from the public or members of the board on these proposed changes. JFletcher motioned to accept the changes to the Site Plan Review Regulation and Checklist. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
7:45 p.m. Subdivision Regulation Changes
RMarshall reviewed the proposed Subdivision Regulation changes, as published in the notice for the public, providing opportunities for the public and the Board to comment. There were no questions from the public or members of the board on these proposed changes.
7:56 p.m. Public hearing closed
With no further commentary from the public, RMarshall closed the public hearing. PRenaud motioned to accept the changes to the Subdivision Regulation. AMoon seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
7:57 p.m. CIP update and assorted Board business
PRenaud presented a quick CIP update. He reminded members that all of their information is due by 7/22. He is working with MSteere to get school board information to help in developing the CIP.
PRenaud noted that SWOT is on the agenda for June 24 and he reported that EDAC will be having a SWOT discussion as well. AMoon explained the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) as a tool to help the various Boards to prioritize items. RMarshall and PRenaud both agreed that SWOT analysis could be used by both EDAC and the Planning Board. AMoon will forward her initial SWOT notes out to the Board.
RMarshall asked the Board to consider creating a special work session meeting(s) to help with some agenda items, as the need arises.
RMarshall thanked PRenaud for his diligence in making sure that we followed the rules of procedure with applications before the Board. He pointed out that #4 in the Officers section of the Rules of Procedure stipulates the Corresponding Secretary’s duties, which include tasks relevant to receiving applications and checking them for completeness prior to public hearing. KO’Connell is our elected Corresponding Secretary and we need to comply with that procedure. We will discuss this at our next meeting.
RMarshall updated the Board on the Community Planning Grant 2 (CPG 2) Advisory Committee work. There have been two meetings with the advisory group and consultants. A heritage consultant will be doing some reconnaissance of the town later this summer.
8:31 p.m. Application Review of IGuthrie
RMarshall asked the Board to review the application for tonight’s public hearing and to see if we can find his application complete. He asked the Board if they wished to go through the checklist. All agreed to do so. After going through the checklist, JFletcher moved to accept application. PRenaud seconded the motion. Vote unanimous in favor.
8:55 p.m. Public Hearing - IGuthrie LLA/Minor Subdivision
RMarshall opened the public hearing and read the protocol and rules for the public hearing. He advised that the hearing was noticed correctly and that certified notices were mailed to the abutters. He advised IGuthrie that his application had been accepted by the Planning Board. He asked the applicant to explain in general terms what he was proposing to do. IGuthrie simply stated he wanted a lot line adjustment to create a back lot. Based on the recommendation of the Planning Board, he went to the ZBA for a variance to allow him to have access to his back lot from a common driveway. He received that variance from the ZBA.
RMarshall said, “You realize if this gets approved as a back lot, it can’t be subdivided.” IGuthrie said, “My goal is to put it into conservation, not to build or subdivide.”
RMarshall questioned where the cut to the new lot is on the plat. IGuthrie pointed it out to all. RMarshall asked if the Town’s DPW Supervisor had signed the plat. IGuthrie said, “Yes, he has.” It was noted that the signature is on an old version of the plat, but the location and design have not changed. JFletcher felt that the road agent signed off on the common driveway and the current cut. PRenaud and SChicoine were in agreement with JFletcher. It was also agreed that the road agent would officially need to sign the new plats.
9:06 p.m. Open Public Discussion
AMajeske, an abutter, asked, “Does the lot line adjustment happen only in Greenfield?” IGuthrie replied, “Yes.”
JGryval, speaking as Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, “We found it a little more complicated, and found that the lines were ok. We made it very clear that as a back lot, no future subdivision could occur. With 3 to 5 possible wetland crossings, the ZBA felt this was the best plan to gain access to the lot.”
9:11 p.m. Closed Public Portion of Hearing
RMarshall asked if there was any further input from the public. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the hearing. He noted there would be no further input from public, but advised that the Planning Board reserved the right to ask questions of the applicant in deliberations.
There being no further discussion from the Planning Board, JFletcher motioned to approve the lot line adjustment, conditional upon all relevant signatures (including the road agent and the owner) being present on all 6 copies of the final plat (dated 5/16/2013). AMoon seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
RMarshall accepted the following fees:
Check #1061 received in the amount of $25 for the LCHIP fee.
Check #1062 received for application fee costs in the amount $348.96.
Check #1063 received for approval fee costs in the amount of $80.00.
9:30 p.m. PCC - Norah’s Depot, SHarless and PWaterhouse
Audience members: SHarless, PWaterhouse, MBorden, LLeBlanc
RMarshall asked PWaterhouse for an update on A Child’s Nature, given that they have a conditional approval from the Board but a For Sale sign is posted on the property. PWaterhouse said, “Once we got approval, it became apparent that the cost of the 100 year old structure for children in today’s regulatory system was going to be beyond our capabilities. Our Child Care Board decided to look at a property that was for sale that was already used as a childcare center, which is Norah’s Depot. The Child Care Board felt that purchasing Norah’s Depot, which was used for 24 children, would be better suited for us.”
RMarshall advised that this is a PCC and not binding. RMarshall asked MBorden to clarify the current use of the property. On June 9, 2013, the State Fire Marshal, Eric Berube, reviewed the property and came up with a list of needs to be met. “All are very doable,” felt MBorden. Norah’s was approved as a childcare facility in the past. Legally this has never changed, even though SHarless has rented it as a residence. Since that visit, however, she has gone through the process of removing the tenants. MBorden advised the Planning Board that the use hasn’t changed since it was last approved.
PWaterhouse said, “If we have a plan in place we could have all the children back, but we’re not sure because we don’t have a location.” AMoon asked, “When did Norah’s license expire?” SHarless indicated that it expired in June 2011.
RMarshall checked the zoning ordinance to see if an approval for use that was granted to a previous applicant is transferrable. MBorden said, “Point of thought – when it is a home based business, you can’t. Norah’s Depot is in the business district.” RMarshall checked the business district regulations and found nothing relating to transfer of licenses.
PRenaud said that regulations call for a Site Plan Review, but give the Board the ability to waive it. “My thinking is that since this was once approved as day care, it could easily be one again. However, I’m unfamiliar with this building; I’d like to have a Site Walk. At that time if we see anything that is a safety issue, we could point it out and then we can determine if we need a Site Plan Review. We could possibly waive it.”
MBorden said that he and the State Fire Marshal walked the property extensively. MBorden has a comprehensive list of the items that need to be addressed.
RMarshall asked, “Is there enough parking area?” MBorden replied, “Yes. Also the main floor is good for 40 children, but regulations for the outside area may have to be measured.” PWaterhouse said, “We are willing to limit ourselves to 24 children in order to move into this location. We would use the space as it was used in the past.”
RMarshall said, “It sounds like the Board would like to do a site walk.” A site walk was scheduled with SHarless for June 15 at 9:00 a.m. PWaterhouse, as operator, will attend as well. PWaterhouse asked if the site walk would be officially noticed. RMarshall said he would do the notice and get it out.
9:59 p.m. Adjournment
JFletcher motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
