Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Angélique Moon
June 24, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, PRenaud, SChicoine, AMoon, JFletcher, KO’Connell
7:03 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the June 10, 2013 meeting minutes. No substantive changes were made, and the minutes were accepted as read.
7:15 p.m. Agenda Changes
The Sawmill Estates team has recalculated the number of lots based on open space requirements and are bringing in a proposal with 25 lots and their potential readjustments for discussion.
The Town of Greenfield was unable to meet with the Cemetery Trustees prior to tonight’s consultation, plus there’s an overlapping key meeting for the Board of Selectman tonight. For these reasons, the DPW agenda item has been moved to July 8th.
7:18 p.m. Mail Received:
1. CC of a letter from Ray Cilley to Selectmen re: Town Timber Harvesting
2. Advertisement SW Cole Engineering
3. Annual OEP Land Use Regulation update request
4. SWRPC letter and Broadband Map
5. Invoice from Upton and Hatfield
6. Returned notification letter for IGuthrie public hearing
7:30 p.m. Board Business
RMarshall explained that there is still $414 unspent against CPG1. We’re exploring options for expending these funds – perhaps a fire-proof file storage system for Planning Board documents, perhaps further documentation of the CPG1 documents.
A community survey created by the Heritage Village Advisory Committee, working with RMarshall, is now available to the public. It’s embedded on the public website and printed copies are available at Harvester Market, the Library, and the Town offices. The goal is to have the responses in by July 15th. Results will be processed by the advisory committee and they are looking to have an ordinance prepared by September 1st. A public meeting will be held to introduce what this ordinance will really mean.
Revised Site Plan Review and Subdivision regulations are published on the website and available in printed form.
Greenfield Meeting Place/BGrunbeck is being granted a NH Housing Authority and Plan NH award for “Adaptive Re-Use Rural”. The announcement will be made this upcoming Wednesday.
PRenaud is now the Chair for EDAC. The team will be working on SWOT over the next several months – generating points and creating strategies. Current state legislature does not allow municipalities to work together to create broadband infrastructure. There was a bill that was tabled, due to major objections from the City of Manchester. The topic will be raised again this year.
7:47 p.m. Sawmill Estates Deliberation
RMarshall informed the public that we are resuming deliberations on Sawmill Estates.
CBranon explained that they have recalculated the open space without the wetland buffers and including various small portions of land between wetlands in the open space. The revised net developable area is 50.45 acres. This yields 25 lots instead of 24 (as discussed at last meeting) or 28 (as originally shown on the plot). In evaluating modifications to reach 25 lots, they have also taken into account the discussion of the Board at the last meeting regarding how potential changes to open land could impact decisions on the need for wildlife studies and public hearings. Their resulting proposal merges lots 1 & 2, 21 & 22, and 18 & 19.
They are looking to confirm if this plan is workable for the Board, and expressed concern that they are at a density that is now not substantially different from a traditional subdivision development.
CBranon clarified points for the Board:
· 18 & 19 were the only lots with common driveway, so any such requests are removed at this point.
· The change to easement on Dorr Way still includes turnaround space for the cisterns as well as the driveway exception for the upper corner lot.
· Clarified the new acreage of the merged lots.
RMarshall asked the Board if the changes mitigate the need for a wildlife study. JFletcher asked in return what level of confirmation CBranon is looking to get from the Board. CBranon indicated that enacting the changes throughout the full set is a 30+ page plot, and he is looking to confirm that these changes address the concerns on open spaces before they pursue reflecting those changes throughout in order to minimize rework. Would like confirmation that this rough plan is workable for the Board, anything hereafter would be minor tweaks – a few feet here or there.
RMarshall brought us back to the question of needing a study regarding conservation value. CBranon reminded all that we are looking at 44.3 acres of open space, but this is not a conservation development. JFletcher said that he wants to have further discussion with the Board on what the open space subdivision is meant to do and where we are at with that.
GMitchell says, “Bottom line is a conventional subdivision would eliminate 95% of the concerns and questions.”
There was some debate between the Board (PRenaud, KO’Connell, and JFletcher) and CBranon and GMitchell as to whether a conventional subdivision road can be approved and built. RMarshall offered to get a legal opinion on this, PRenaud, Fletcher, KO’Connell agreed that a legal opinion is not yet needed here. The Board thinks that conventional might be more problematic.
AMoon expressed that the change to 18 and 19 addressed two of her major concerns re: the original plan and open space value.
PRenaud expressed that one of the benefits of this plan is that there are smaller, more affordable lots. KO’Connell disagreed as we don’t yet know how the lots will be developed or sold. The only thing that we know at the moment is that they are smaller lots, and we assume that they will therefore be more affordable. RMarshall agreed that in a town where most of our lots are 4 acres or more this offers a chance at more affordable lots. JFletcher noted that affordability of lots is not contained in the purpose of open space.
JFletcher read Section A: Purpose of the Open Space Ordinance and the Board considered the criteria:
1. Greater flexibility and creativity: GMitchell expressed that this was actually more restrictive than regular subdivision requirements. CBranon pointed out that this line item doesn’t really speak to the Board, is more addressed at the developer, to entice them to create open space subdivisions.
2. Permanent preservation of land: Met.
3. Traditional rural character and land use pattern: Discussion ensued on lot clustering. CBranon said that they would love to cluster the lots more, but our ordinances prevent it. He also noted that meaningful purpose is not really defined – there’s no point system, there’s no specific criteria. AMoon expressed that there’s two different aspects of preserving rural character – for the other residents of the town there’s almost no visual impact, for the residents of the subdivision there’s perhaps less so but still rural character.
4. Natural features of the land: Worked to best of their ability.
5. Wildlife corridors: This topic was addressed by the Board in the Standards for Approval discussion (below).
6. Overall density: Met.
Board read and considered the Standards for Approval:
1. Application in compliance: Application is not in compliance with the Subdivision Regulation as they requested several waivers for the road design. PRenaud expressed concern that the applicant hasn’t requested all of the right road waivers. CBranon said that they have updated their waiver request to reflect all pertinent road details. PRenaud said that we still need to address the waivers and take a formal vote. PRenaud asked for a letter from the applicant stating the specific waivers requested in each instance. CBranon agreed that they will submit a letter with full references.
2. Surrounding property impact: Met.
3. Existing violations: Met.
4. Character of the area
a. Transportation: Met, confirmed that LWhite reviewed the plan.
b. Protection of natural resources: JFletcher expressed concern with making a determination on B1. This one is a question mark for PRenaud. CBranon said that they’re not impacting any of the wetlands. They did the Natural Heritage Bureau critical species and historic database check back at the beginning of the wetlands permit work, and they had their wildlife biologist walk the property multiple times. They’ve found no key wildlife areas.
c. Protection of cultural and agricultural resources: Dorr Way easement is a positive here – improving the available trailways.
5. Roads: Met, via Homeowners Association Agreement.
6. Existing or planned community facilities and services: No impact here, even the public road maintenance for Rt 31 is a state cost item, and state has already given approvals.
Discussion of the open space areas:
· Change of Dorr Way to easement – property lines are respected, easement language needs to be agreed upon and will include all legal stipulations.
· Consideration of putting the old road crossing Lots 1 and 19 into the open space.
· Question arose regarding how it will be ensured that wetland buffers are respected within properties. CBranon said, “We’re not really proposing that that happens.” The assumption is that to build or change anything they’ll have to get a permit and such would be evaluated at that point. Additionally, there are state and federal laws protecting wetlands and anyone in violation of those laws will face serious repercussions.
RMarshall asked for a call from the Board on whether or not the Board needs more information from the applicant, assuming they pursue this approach to the plan, in order to make a decision. There are still waivers to be reviewed, but the question at the moment is whether the purposes and wildlife issues have been addressed. SChicoine feels that the applicant has addressed his key concerns in their proposed plan. AMoon feels that they are preserving character for town residents and enabling access to open space for the subdivision residents. JFletcher feels that they are likely doing the best they can here – would like to see a wildlife study if time and money were non-issues, but in reality doesn’t feel that it’s necessary. KO’Connell wants to ensure that the Board/Town uses the
Conditions of Approval to ensure that all rules follow the property, regardless of who ends up developing it. PRenaud says this would fall in a 5 year exemption, and following the plan will ensure that they are exempt from changes to the ordinances in the meantime. PRenaud feels that “wildlife is going to go where wildlife is going to go”, the narrowness of the corridors and wildlife experts’ opinions aside. He also recognized that they got a wetlands permit and a lot of this has already been approved by State.
GMitchell asked for confirmation from the Board that it is not necessary to engage a wildlife study. All members of the Board confirmed that they agree the applicant is ready to move forward, without the need to engage a wildlife expert for a distinct study. GMitchell stated that they then will move on with the waivers and modifications to the final plans.
Discussion of the waivers:
A. Road grade, PRenaud feels this is essentially a non-issue. 8.2 or 8.3 is only marginally different from 8%.
B. Maximum Length: This is a larger issue – the ordinance gives maximum grade for a max length of 500’. This plan has maximum grade for all ~4500’.
· PRenaud says he has no problem approving this as private road but is concerned that within a few years they’ll come back asking for it to be made public. AMoon said that at that point they’ll have to come to the town for approval and “how can we make a decision today based on what may happen in the future – best we can do is plan for contingencies.” PRenaud feels that the reason for concern on the grade would be maintenance and safety. KO’Connell says that he would feel it’s basically a safety issue.
· CBranon responded that they’ve put a note on the front of the plan and continue to reinforce that the road is to be private. He expressed that historically what they’ve seen is that when roads are built to public road standards it is often legally valid that the property owners can push for the road to be made public. Given the waivers, this road will not meet our public standards and that would be in the Town’s favor should there ever be an unfavorable push to make this road public.
C. Intersection Slope: SChicoine asked CBranon to provide specific language referencing justification for the 8% slope coming down the hill given this is 4 times the limit.
2. High Intensity Soils Survey: No action taken at this time.
CBranon and GMitchell confirmed that the development will be phased. They also confirmed that turnarounds are planned for emergency vehicles. CBranon said that they will add notes to indicate which lots will be included in Phase 1 and where the temporary turnarounds will be placed.
CBranon will get the specific waiver request letter in and would like to get back before the Board as soon as possible. He asked to get that review in place before fully revising the plan set.
RMarshall noted that CIP is slated for the July 22nd meeting. PRenaud affirmed that 30-45 minutes should be sufficient for CIP. RMarshall confirmed 8:15pm on July 22nd with CBranon and GMitchell for the continuation. GMitchell said that they’d like to get the letter in before that date and have it put before the Board so that everyone can review and pass back any feedback before coming into that meeting. CBranon will send both email and hardcopy to RMarshall.
SChicoine expressed concern that the review in the field was of empty land. The current language requires TMurray to sign off that he has reviewed this in the field, but there’s no current flagging.
PRenaud said that we still need to discuss the implications of RSA 674:21-a Development Restrictions Enforceable.
10:42 p.m. Board Business
· Given the hour, SWOT is postponed to a future meeting.
· Corresponding Secretary: KO’Connell resigned. RMarshall is looking for volunteers to fulfill the duties as laid out in the Officers section of the Rules of Procedure. No volunteers came forward – consideration is extended to July 8th.
11:00 p.m. Adjournment
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
