Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
November 11, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, SChicoine
7:01 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud began reading the October 2, 2013 meeting minutes. Several spelling, punctuation and word replacement changes were made. One substantive change was made:
Line 115: inserted the following phrase after CIP Committee, “which would include one or more Planning Board members” to read “A CIP committee, which would include one or more Planning Board members, would put it together and present it to the Planning Board. The Planning Board would then have to adopt it.
RMarshall received a call last week from TMurray who said trees have been flagged for removal by Asplundt near Oak Park and along Route 31 where PSNH power lines are. RMarshall spoke with Dave Burleigh from Asplundt . Mr. Burleigh stated that PSNH has begun a program of “Enhanced Tree Trimming” near the power lines in response to a directive from the Public Utilities Commission to reduce the number of outages that PSNH has been experiencing. Mr. Burleigh said that any of the excess cutting is with the consent of the abutters and there are no plans to cut from fire station east, none to be removed on Francestown Road, and Sawmill Road. RMarshall said the cutting has already happened on Route 136 in Peterborough. He spoke about the trees that are in Village and that we want to have them preserved. RMarshall asked APatt
to schedule a meeting with KO’Connell and himself with Selectmen about this issue. KO’Connell said when they do the enhanced tree trimming it is the plan to keep this up and they will come back in 5 years and keep the area cleared. KO’Connell read from RSA 231:172, the trimming of utilities statute.
7:32 p.m. IGuthrie – Site Plan Review/Storage Facility – PCC
IGuthrie has a greenhouse on his property and wants to convert it into a mini-storage facility. RMarshall asked if he had looked through the zoning ordinance? IGuthrie replied he hadn’t. RMarshall asked is your property in Rural Ag or Gen Residence? IGuthrie responded he thought it was in both districts but then asked for assistance in determining which district he was in. Looking at the current zoning map RMarshall and IGuthrie determined he is in the Rural Ag. District.
RMarshall read the permitted uses in Rural Ag district and Professional uses and customary home occupation language.from the Zoning Ordinance. RMarshall asked the Board, “Does anyone see any language that allows or prohibits this?” JFletcher said he didn’t see any language. KO’Connell asked, “Is this a use or an occupation?” He said that “This ordinance was written to be more inclusive of home occupations that didn’t change the character of the home.”
RMarshall read the PCC criteria adding this PCC shall not bind the applicant or the board. The intent is to let you know what can take place.
KO’Connell asked, “Is it an occupation?” IGuthrie asked what is an occupation? PRenaud asked, “Does it meet paragraph two in a site plan review. Paragraph #2 is used to determine if it is an occupation.”
RMarshall asked, “Does what you want to do fall under ‘Use of an accessory structure.’ IGuthrie said his idea is to put a metal roof over his 30x144’ greenhouse, put in a cement floor, and section off the inside of it.
MBorden said 400’ of New Boston Road is considered residential and feels that he might be real close to residential. MBorden said the greenhouse in probably in residential. KO’Connell said a variance and a special exception would be needed for this.
RMarshall said it sounds like a site plan review is needed. It has to be determined which district the greenhouse is in, a variance and special exception will be needed and you will have to comply with building codes. MBorden said he is not sure you can have a business in a residential zone without a house on the land.
IGuthrie said “It appears that this might not be worth it if I have to get a special exception and/or variance. Plans need to be drawn which is cost prohibitive. Right now it is more of an idea, not worth the hassle as there are too many obstacles to jump through for a tiny business.” IGuthrie thanked the board and left.
8:05 p.m. Sawmill Road Deliberation.
RMarshall commented that he had e-mailed the home owners agreement documents out to the board and wants to address any objections or concerns. He also wants to know if there are any concerns with the new plats he given us.
CBranon said there were no changes made since last meeting. He remembers some discussion about the homeowners document going to town counsel. So perhaps more input from the town counsel will help the Board to come to a conclusion.
RMarshall suggested the Board address the plats. JFletcher said there are no seals on these plats right now. CBranon advised the seals will be on the final documents.
SChicoine has some plats corrections:
· Pg 2 refers to 10 lots. It should be 11 lots.
· Pg 9 lot 3 relocated the designated septic area extending into the 75’ well radius and lot 18 showing without test pit data CBranon explained these test pits are not typically shown. Once the lots are built new test pits will be done.
· Pg 11 lot 25 doesn’t show the test pit area.
· Pg 11 two lots number as #8.
· Pg 18 shows Dorr Way which needs to be removed.
There were no further comments about the plats.
Homeowners Association Declaration:
PRenaud said he has some concerns about the homeowner’s document. “My concern is that I noticed that the dates were changed on the most recent homeowners and that Peavey Way is on page 7. We need to eliminate Peavey Way.”
PRenaud read RSA 674:21-a. This pertains to the open space and there has to be an understanding that there won’t be any development in that area. He wants the Planning Board to ask counsel if the language in the homeowners declaration in article 6 is enough to be in compliance with the requirements of RSA 674:21-a and to RSA 477:45, I? If that is not the case, then the application will have to have a statement attached to the application or the homeowner’s document stating that there is to be no building on the open space area. Do we need an actual easement for the open space land to comply with this?
RMarshall asked, “You’re not precluding the homeowners from doing improvements to the open space area, which is permitted by the ordinance?” PRenaud said no, but do we need a conservation easement document as part of the homeowners declaration or as a separate document?
PRenaud said another concern is the potential of the private road, Butterfield Drive, becoming a public road. We granted waivers to several slopes in this development. They don’t met standards of our ordinance, which may become stricter. In the future, if the town takes over the road, they would have to bring it up to the road requirements of the town. The homeowners association would have to pay for the initial cost in upgrading the road. Referring to RSA 231:28-33, he asked if we should add a provision to the Homeowners Declaration, Article 5, ensuring that landowners were notified of their liability to upgrade the road, should an effort be made to have the road accepted as a town road?
KO’Connell asked, “Does the Planning Board get involved with the road upgrade issue?”
MBorden commented that thought he remembered that roads have to be paved so the fire department can get to those cisterns. He believes no construction can begin until the cisterns are in. KO’Connell said the plat notes say 14’ wide pavement, not gravel.
CBranon said “It is my understanding that he, GMitchell, would prefer a gravel road. He supposes he can modify the note to say pavement optional. RMarshall said “I was assuming, when discussing the waivers, the road would be paved.” MBorden asked what NFPA allows. CBranon said, “Hard packed gravel.” CBranon said a gravel road doesn’t need a waiver. PRenaud believed his vote for the waiver was on gravel. PRenaud said “Do we need to reconsider the waivers, because I alone felt that these would be gravel and everyone else was under the impression it would be paved.”
CBranon asked what is the board’s preference is on the roads?
PRenaud said “Let’s ask the fire chief. With the 8.2% grade, can the road be a gravel road and is it OK? With a road length of 2450’ to cisterns at 8.3% grade, I feel gravel would be OK.
SChicoine said the second paragraph that describes the lots should read as “trust” not “developer”.
SChicoine asked about the detail phasing plan. CBranon said the board approved at last meeting phase notes to change from 10 lots to 11.
MBorden said that no building permit would be issued until the cisterns were in. MBorden said ultimately that the building permit would not be issued without the fire chief approval on the cisterns. PRenaud said we need a written document from the fire chief on when the cistern gets built and requirements/restrictions on the plan pertaining to a gravel road.
JFletcher asked, “Is the road maintenance declaration in HOA? Our Subdivision Regulations requires under Appendices A-d-2 the specific language should be added to articles of the association. He also felt we should add a reference to RSA 231:28 – 33.
JFletcher and SChicoine both asked where the written wildlife study we requested is. CBranon said his expert hadn’t completed it yet.
RMarshall asked if we were done with the question of detailed phasing? He recalled that half the road would be built to the cisterns for fire protection.
JFletcher asked what the purpose of bonding the road is. CBranon said. “Procedurally, bonding and completion of the road go hand in hand. Phase 1 would be the road being laid out and built to a certain point to met NFPA requirements. As to when the cistern goes in, that is a discussion the fire chief and I will be having. Right now the detailed phasing notes would suffice on the plats until after the discussion with the fire chief. It has to be what he, the fire chief, requires. We meet the regulations that say seven houses before the cistern is built.”
KO’Connell had a question about the phasing. CBranon said, “We submitted the road bond information at the last meeting where phase 1 shows construction of the road up to the cistern location. Additional notes need to be added concerning number of building permits to be issued before the cistern is constructed, after a discussion with the fire chief.” RMarshall will wait to hear from CBranon. He will have LWhite, Fire Chief, look at the temporary turn arounds as well.
KO’Connell wants to make sure that if the subdivision fails, the bonding covers the first phase of the road construction.
RMarshall asked the board, “How near are we to having a final deliberation discussion on the application? We have been collecting data since last December. I would like to see us get to a decision at our first meeting in December. He asked CBranon if that enough time to make changes? CBranon said he thought so. The legal questions need to be asked of town counsel.
PRenaud asked “Don’t we have to have an engineer to look at the bonding figures? The board consensus was yes. PRenaud asked how would further bonding on the road go? CBranon said “I submitted bonding for both phases.”
RMarshall said that our previous civil engineer KNordstrom was used last time. KNordstrom was ok’d by CBranon. RMarshall will ask KNordstrom if he would review, but he will wait until he receives information from CBranon after his discussion with the fire chief.
PRenaud asked if the language of the legal documents be done before being sent off to MSerge, Town counsel. CBranon said he has to contact his lawyer for the changes that were requested. JFletcher agreed as there are substantial changes to be done.
SChicoine said our subdivision regulations have time limits on streets and roads. CBranon wants to have GMitchell in on this dialogue with the Planning Board. He asked what is “substantial completion.” Performance guarantee was mentioned as a possible condition of approval.
KO’Connell asked “Does a timeline have to be a calendar timeline or an event timeline? Should it be a condition of approval?”
RMarshall read the Section V B – Performance Bond, (pg 7) and feels that it is more about public utilities. This is a private development and private roads, so it doesn’t apply. JFletcher said the sentence on regulation starts with electric lines, so that doesn’t apply. This seems a funny place to put it if the intent was a timeline on every street that was improved. I don’t think that we really need it. It would be easier to do a waiver and then discuss the language later.
KO’Connell feels that it is something that we could waive now. PRenaud said, “No we need a request for the waiver from the developer.” JFletcher reiterated that he felt the regulation doesn’t apply.
CBranon was in agreement that this concerns a public road and doesn’t apply to a private road. CBranon said, “My interpretation of this regulation is that this allows the town to take action on the bond if this isn’t done in a timeframe agreed upon. With that in mind, maybe what KO’Connell was proposing, a timeline associated with the phase, is a good idea. At some point the work is going to be done in order to get a building permit or certificate of occupancy.”
KO’Connell suggested we include a note on the plat stating intent of completion of the utilities be five years from the start of the phase. CBranon said he will work a note on the plat to read “construction cannot start until bonding in place.”
RMarshall said “It seems we are getting close to finishing this discussion and completing this application.” He thanked CBranon for attending and answering our questions.
10:35 p.m. Mail received:
· Greenfield Building Permits Y-T-D 2013
· Nov/December 2013NH Town and City publication
· ZBA Case 2013-3, DMcKenney for D&B Pierce for restoration of involuntary lot merger
· ZBA Case 2013-4, D&P Simmons for equitable waiver of dimensional requirements from Section II C.3 of the zoning ordinance.
· Two Applications for state inspection stations for Atherton and Fulton.
10:36 p.m. RMarshall read Case 2013-3 Board of Adjustment public hearing notice, for an appeal from an administrative decision by the Select Board from Dennis D. McKenney on behalf of David and Barbara Pierce, 111 Bennett Hill Rd, Rowley, MA 01969 concerning their property located at 61 Francestown Road, Greenfield, NH Tax Map, V2 Lot 10.
To be discussed is the denial for a request for separation of two lots of record from an involuntary merger. The property is located in the General Residence District.
Following discussion, JFletcher motioned that the Planning Board should recommend that the Zoning Board of Adjustment should overrule the Select Board’s decision. PRenaud seconded. Vote 2 yes; 1 no; 1 abstained. Affirmatives carried the vote in favor.
Case 2013-4 deferred to next meeting.
RMarshall asked MBorden about the DES permit about the letter concerning the two wood fired boilers at CMRC. MBorden will be talking to John at CMRC and he will let the Planning Board know if it is a renewal or a new boiler. MBorden thinks it might be a renewal, but the letter doesn’t reflect that.
There are two requests for inspection station permits for automobile service stations – Fulton’s Auto LLC and SM Atherton Auto Care.
Fulton –
MBorden said Fulton’s has had a shingle for inspection outside door for a long time and feels it’s been a legal inspection station for ever.
SChicoine said that Atherton’s is at the warehouse which is in the Groundwater Protection District and precludes an automobile service station from operating there. Fulton’s is also in Groundwater Protection District. There are new regulations since the older Fulton operated the garage. RMarshall said we need to give feedback to on these inspection applications. The three choices are defer, deny or complies.
At this time both fall under Groundwater Protection Ordinance and have had no site plan reviews. No variance has been sought for either location.
The Planning Board decided the following:
Fulton-Recommend the state Defer Action–- needs site plan review to investigate the ‘grandfather’ status of the previous inspection station.
Atherton-Recommend the state Deny –- needs a site plan review as it is in Groundwater Protection District and is a prohibited use.
11:20 Adjournment
JFletcher motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
