Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
October 7, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, AMoon, KDay, SChicoine
7:01 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the September 23, 2013 meeting minutes. Several spelling, punctuation and word replacement changes were made. One substantive change was made:
· The question asked by PRenaud on Line 49 isn’t what he intended. The sentence was changed to read as follows: PRenaud asked, “Is the present NHDAC committee going to continue until Town Meeting?”
KO’Connell motioned to accept the minutes as amended. AMoon seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
7:20 p.m. Budget
RMarshall said there were two big items to review from last month’s budget discussion: the lines for the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) and the Neighborhood Heritage District Advisory Committee (NHDAC). We have a new $1,500 EDAC line to reflect expenses of the committee. Also a $500 NHDAC line was added - to be removed by amendment should the Ordinance fail.
In conversation with APatt, it was suggested that two new warrant articles be presented at town meeting: one for a Planning Charrette and the other for the Community Planning Grant #2 which is $29,000+. APatt submitted on 10/1/13 a Planning Charrette application which costs between $5-6,000. We will attempt to raise the money to cover the costs privately, but the funds have to be appropriated in the event we are unsuccessful.
KDay asked if the Planning Board ever considered a capital reserve fund each year for the Master Plan. RMarshall responded that $2500 has been in the budget for the last two years in hopes to do a chapter per year on the Master Plan. KO’Connell suggested at last meeting to create a Legal Resource Capital Reserve Fund to minimize budgeting for potential lawsuits.
JFletcher asked if the EDAC line was enough. We are planning to participate in a trade show next year that will have expenses so we should add funds to that line. $500 will be added to this amount.
AMoon asked why we historically under-spend in advertising and postage. RMarshall explained some of those costs have been covered by grant monies recently and those grants will end next spring. The usage and expenses will change when we begin advertising for non-grant related proposals, which can be costly.
7:45 p.m. Population and Housing Analysis
We reviewed the August 12 minutes wherein our recommendations for change in the draft were made. RMarshall said LMurphy has not done the final edits, but has made the changes as requested. It appears that all of the requests have been addressed. RMarshall will have her correct the error in Table 19, changing the 80% to 50% on last column.
Recommendations:
RMarshall noted that there are three elderly housing recommendations. Perhaps a change in our zoning ordinance which would permit clustered development for people over 55+. RMarshall also said we might need to create another ordinance to promote development, and we should investigate the alternatives to cluster development for certain segments of the population.
PRenaud said a community conversation is needed to discuss cluster development and about the concept of small cluster development. PRenaud said a lot of input from the community is needed and this would be an interesting conversation. He noted that the open space ordinance could be revised to support smaller clustered development.
KO’Connell suggested this is a very complex issue and perhaps we could expand the Village District as there may be small areas that could have a cluster development. JFletcher said we should put in a comment such as “alternative housing is needed”. This comment would then support alternative developments in the Master Plan.
AMoon offered that the needs for alternative housing options are not exclusive to the elderly, for example interest in “green lifestyle” would be a similar driver, yet the current language points specifically and only to that scenario. She recommended revising the summary language to “be reflective of the broader needs of the community, citing the elderly as a prime example but not the only driver.”
KDay asked is there a chapter on roads, transportation? RMarshall said that there is but it hasn’t been addressed as of yet. KDay noted that the concept of alternative housing is tied into roads, pathways, etc.
On recommendation #3, temporary housing, it appears we have a real concern about manufactured housing. Not sure that the community would be in alignment with this recommendation. When she comes to present the final draft, we’ll discuss inclusion of this.
JFletcher asked “What does the ‘in conclusion’ mean? Is it for the whole document or just the recommendations?” He noted that the current language here seems to point to the elderly recommendations, not to summarizing the section as a whole.
RMarshall said LMurphy will come back with a final draft on 10/28 and we can still make corrections. He noted that due to time constraints the Neighborhood Heritage Draft ordinance will be tabled for this evening. He asked the members to please read it, forward any feedback to him, and he will forward comments to LMurphy for finalization. RMarshall said he will get a copy to the NHDAC for comments as he would like both committees to have input for changes.
8:15 p.m. Mail Received:
· Invoice from Fletcher Media dated 10/1/2013 for Community Conversation Postcard
· Copy of DES Permit for Gravel Excavation
· SWRPC Order for Planning and Land Use manual
· SWPRC Fall Meeting notice
· NH DES Wetland Bureau, Application for Culvert Replacement
8:36 p.m. Sawmill Estates Deliberation
Revised Plan set:
CBranon said his list and the Planning Board’s list of outstanding items were very similar items. He said since last meeting he has gone through and made the changes as requested. He provided the three homeowners association documents.
CBranon said he has made a number of minor revisions to the plans:
· Open space calculations - no wetland buffers, no access easement, no steep slopes were included in the calculation. We do exceed the open space requirement as we made modifications to the open space areas to meet the calculations. The back of lots 6, 7, and 8 were reduced and we went from 28 lots to 25 lots to meet the standard. RMarshall asked if the adjustment of the lot lines reflects the area of the easement and doesn’t affect the open space area or calculations. CBranon said “we made sure the access easement wasn’t included in the open space calculation”.
· Owner's title - the owner's title was added on all of the sheets.
· CBranon commented all the plans changed and the lot numbers changed. R2-17 &18 R2-1 were merged which is reflected in the plans and notes.
· Modified the phasing line to reflect phase one to include 11 lots. “We have to have the lot yield to support the construction cost.”
· The road to cisterns will meet NFPA standards as noted on plat.
· Eliminated the road agent signature box.
· RMarshall asked “Does page 4 show the turn-around easement?” CBranon said “Yes.”
· CBranon said Page 5 details the access easement and other easements. Slope and drainage easements were left and if the access is to be converted to a road, the easements are in place. The cistern easement was listed on this sheet.
· Page 7 There has been a lot of discussion about well placement, topographical sheets are the only ones that get submitted to the state. CBranon said “We have to show a well can be supported on the lot.” They exposed the wells on this page as well and ensured that they are in the same location across pages. The sheet supports the lots and validity of well locations.
· Page 8 shows all of the new lot numbers and setback changes, and monuments along the right of ways have been eliminated.
· Design sheets - The road design hasn’t changed. They secured the waivers for the slopes and intersections and made revision to simply show the current lot configuration and numbers.
· Sheet 13 previously was a common driveway sheet, and since the only lots with common driveway have been merged, the page now reflects the grading to provide a sample buildable lot design. Numbers of the details were re-numbered.
· Sheet 14 no revisions other than lot re-numbering.
· Sheet D-1 revisions to remove the road standards previously depicted.
· Sheet D-2 replotted the sheets.
· Sheet D-3 standard erosion details, reviewed by town consultant - no changes made.
· Cistern detail sheet - removed the other town’s name, removed Dorr Way on the notes.
· Revised the title block to include the land owner’s name. Title sheet added the Zoning Board’s Special Exception. It was commented that the application would have to get a new Special Exception, but KO’Connell advised that a granted Special Exception “goes with the land”, so no new exception is required. KO’Connell asked that there be a note on the title page noting why the Special Exception was required. Sheet 9 shows the reference to the wetland. (ZBA Sept 2, 2008 meeting minutes)
· KO’Connell asked about changing the cross hatch in wetlands legend for consistency. JFletcher suggested that CBranon not change the cross hatch as it is correct.
· Notes on Sheet #17, Appendix Xl now says will “conform to Town of Greenfield regulations.”
PRenaud has a concern about the manner in which the waivers granted by the Planning Board at the July 22, 2013 meeting were documented. “By law there has to be a basis in the minutes for granting the waivers.” PRenaud read the RSA 674:36 language relating to the granting of waivers, which indicates 2 potential reasons for granting waivers and requires that the rationale be captured in the meeting minutes.
Grade at intersection exceeding 2%: PRenaud suggests from previous discussions, the condition of the land in such subdivision indicate the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations, hence, the minimal increase 8.2% of the grade of the road.
High density waiver: CBranon said there is no requirement with your local regulations that would result in any problem after a high density soils report is done. There is no impact on this project at all.
RMarshall asked the Board, “In terms of procedure, do we have to re-motion these waivers?” PRenaud motioned to reference the portion of the July 22, 2013 meeting addressing waiver granting to address the justification of the Planning Board for granting the waivers. JFletcher seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
Grade at intersection exceeding 2%: PRenaud indicated that waiver #1 was granted because the 3% grade at the intersection is within the spirit and intent of the regulation. Public safety is not an issue for a 3% grade based on the specific condition of land at the stop and this change being minimal.
PRenaud motioned to establish the justification for minimal grade increase above the 2% at the stop sign (2.3% and 2.9%) and the 8% grade is a little more and has no legal stop, hence it is much less of a safety issue. JFletcher seconded. JFletcher said the spirit and intent of this particular waiver is the approach to stop (intersection) and only the approach. I would rather be vague but I can still vote on this motion.
SChicoine said he would rather be vague in the justification. RMarshall called for the vote. AMoon, KO’Connell, JFletcher, PRenaud voted in favor. SChicoine voted against.
Maximum grade exceeding 8%: PRenaud motioned to establish justification for maximum grade of 8.3% as a minimal difference from the allowable grade of 8% and other associated grade requirements are negligible. AMoon seconded. Vote unanimous in favor
High intensity soil survey waiver: SChicoine motioned to establish the justification for granting the waiver as it does not violate the spirit and intent of the regulation. AMoon seconded. AMoon, SChicoine, JFletcher, KO’Connell voted in favor. PRenaud abstained.
RMarshall asked if the Planning Board would like to go over the Planning Board list. The Board agreed.
Revised Plats:
RMarshall asked if the presentation made by CBranon is sufficient for these plats. SChicoine said he needs more time to look at the plats.
Third Party consultant review of calculations:
CBranon said he doesn’t know how a 3rd party consultant could confirm the net developable area/open space calculations. A board member did some calculations and noted that the roads were included and the adjustments were made. JFletcher said that on the previous application Keech found some inconsistencies. RMarshall said to CBranon “We are asking for confirmation of the data that you’ve given us.” JFletcher questioned it is worth the effort to send this out. RMarshall said “If it comes back with a discrepancy, I would say yes. If it was a negligible amount, no problem and that falls in the spirit and intent of the regulations. If it was major, then that is a bigger issue.” AMoon asserted that if it was sufficiently off, we would have caught
it by now. She doesn’t see a need to send this out for separate review. SChicoine said last time the consultant did note some discrepancy, but it was very small.
CBranon said the land area is still larger than the previous application; the net developable area is smaller because of these adjustments we made.
RMarshall asked if we should remove the consultant review from the revised plats item and engineering consultant list. JFletcher motioned to remove review by consultant under revised plat and engineering consultant list. AMoon seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
Detailed Phasing Plan:
Review by Fire Chief (cistern access) - to be done
Phasing plan:
CBranon said they didn’t need a detail phasing plan. He added notes to sheet 2, added NFPA cistern regulations. PRenaud said all the information is available to us on the sheets.
KO’Connell said the first phase has to be completed before any building permits are granted. CBranon said this needs to be discussed. Typically, you complete your first phase, roads, etc, and build one house on spec. After that one house is sold, then you get building permits. JFletcher asked “Then why separate into phases?” CBranon responded that is to try to break up the bonding, which is costly. CBranon said that at the end of Phase 1, you’d want the cistern to be in.
Bonding requirement:
RMarshall received the bond estimate sheet from CBranon. CBranon explained that the roadway construction costs are based on the NH Dept of Transportation Weighed Average Unit Prices.
Homeowners Association Agreement:
RMarshall received 3 sets for review. Included were declaration, by-laws, and articles of the association. PRenaud asked that the Board review the documents first, then send to the attorney for review.
JFletcher had requested a wildlife report, but it has not been received. CBranon said he would get a report from the wildlife expert in his company.
RMarshall asked how the board felt about not doing the open space calculations. SChicoine has no problem in not doing the re-calculations. CBranon said “I don’t give out all my information and the engineer will just use what the plat shows.” PRenaud motioned to remove the requirement for the open space calculation because the steep slopes can’t be used in the open space calculations but are still part of the open space. AMoon seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
Permits and Agreements:
· Driveway permit expired in 2/09, pending
· State subdivision permit issued 4/09, OK
· Alteration of Terrain Permit, OK
· EPA Construction General Permit, handled by building contractor
· Homeowners Association Agreement, received and to be reviewed by Board members
· Easement/Agreement with Greenfield Fire Department - Board feels a written
document/easement is needed for the fire department. RMarshall will consult with Fire Chief.
Other concerns:
SChicoine asked if the homeowners’ association agreements, easement with fire dept, and performance bonding are needed before conditional approval could take place. CBranon said, “Bonding is done just before the work begins”.
RMarshall continued Sawmill Estates deliberations to 8:15 p.m. on November 11, 2013.
10:50 p.m. Adjournment
PRenaud motioned to adjourn. JFletcher seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
