Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
April 14, 2014
Members present: RMarshall, PRenaud, KO’Connell, SFox, SChicoine, AHeck
7:00 P.M. Meeting Opened
PRenaud began reading the March 24, 2014 meeting minutes. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made.
RMarshall introduced Andrew Heck who has volunteered to serve as an alternate. RMarshall advised AHeck that it is a 3 year appointment. He also stated that AMoon has indicated that she might serve as an alternate as well. PRenaud motioned to appoint AHeck as an alternate. SFox seconded. Vote unanimous in favor. RMarshall welcomed AHeck. He was sworn in by the Town Clerk.
RMarshall advised the Planning board that he has received no communications from GMItchell about the Sawmill Estates case. He will be communicating to him tomorrow to get a status update from GMitchell.
PRenaud will register for the broadband conference for May 16 which costs $60. The fees will come from the education line of the Planning Board budget.
RMarshall informed the Board that he met with the NH Heritage consultants, BFrost, MStier and LMurphy, and they recommended sending a letter to the Select Board to request the supplemental grant be rescinded. Consultants recommended that the Board should consult with the individuals who were strongly opposed and get their input on what they would like to see in town. RMarshall would like to pursue the idea of using incentives, which was suggested by the public at the January meeting, to provide protection and promote preservation of the rural character of the town. RMarshall has been invited by ConCom to participate in the Community Supper as part of the Roadside Round-up on April 26. He will have a brief slide show and seek volunteers for input into the incentive idea. He asked if there were any volunteers who could come to scoop ice cream.
7:12 p.m. Mail Received:
Invoice from Registry of Deed: subdivision of Williams
Notifications from Monadnock Ledger totaling $256.25
8 certified returns for Greenfield Congregational Church Design Review meeting
DES invitation to NH DES Annual Drinking Water Source Protection Conference
7:30 JHopkins Site Plan Review Application Public Hearing
RMarshall informed the public the first portion is for the review of the application, and if application is complete, it will be accepted and then the public portion will proceed.
A check in the amt $130.00 was received from JHopkins for the fees associated with the hearing.
RMarshall began reviewing the site plan application. He proceeded to asked if there are any or all necessary permits have been applied for. JHopkins said no. Applications will be applied for after this meeting depending upon the outcome. A State of NH Liquor Commission permit and TTB (Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau) will be applied for if the application is approved.
RMarshall noted there is a 100 gal water storage tank and does this require a permit. JHopkins replied, “No permits are needed for the water storage tank.” JHopkins said they will be requesting waivers but will do so as we Board goes through the checklist.
After going through the checklist, several items were noted as missing.
No – Landowners names are not on the plat.
No – Listing of Zoning District with boundaries for the plat. (Village District)
No – No structures shown on abutting properties
No – The water source shown on abutting property is not shown (pond on church land)
No - The house isn’t located on plat,
No – No parking spaces are shown on the plat (It was later determined this is a N/A item.)
No – No snow storage and removal plan (It was later determined this a NA item)
No – No discussion has happened with the Fire Dept about fire safety and control plans on plat
A variance was approved by the Board of Adjustment on February 19, 2014 for a setback from the public highway. RMarshall noted that MSDS sheets are attached to the application showing the waste water disposal. He asked is the waste toxic. JHopkins said the waste is non-toxic and biodegradable.
RMarshall asked the Board, “Do we have enough information to accept this application?”
KO’Connell motioned that sufficient information was present to invoke jurisdiction to accept the application. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor to accept the application.
RMarshall asked JHopkins to briefly tell the audience what he and DCorliss were planning. JHopkins explained that the purpose is to open up a winery, namely a honey wine product to be manufactured and distributed out this existing barn on the his property. He explained he received a variance for the setback requirement from a public highway that the zoning ordinance required. DCorliss said there would be no change in the traffic pattern and supplies will be brought in by the owner or UPS.
8:15 p.m. Public Hearing portion opened.
RMarshall opened the public portion advising of the procedures and protocol. He handed out a clipboard with a sign-up sheet for audience. He asked for their name and whether or not an abutter or just interested party.
RMarshall asked, “Does the Board have any other questions of the applicant?” KO’Connell asked about one of the MSDS sheets about the concentration of the cleaner. DCorliss said they will use the recommended dilutions. SChicoine asked, “How will the concentrated solutions be it is stored?” DCorliss said, “In the manufacturer’s containers.” . AHeck said the MSDS sheets are standard for any cleaners and are informational and they have to be available at all times. He also noted these are non toxic. DCorliss said these cleaners are environmentally friendly and are milder than chlorine bleach.
PRenaud said he is curious about the disposal of these cleaners. Sani-Clean is 29% phosphoric acid and usually this is neutralized before it is disposed. DCorliss said the MSDS sheets advise of disposal and we will do so in accordance with local, state and Federal regulations. PRenaud said he will check on dilution ratios and the disposal of these items.
MGrant, asked of JHopkins and DCorliss, “Will this be sold wholesale or retail?” JHopkins said, “No one can come in to the buy this item. We will distribute to markets.” She also inquired, “Is there any agency that would come in on annual basis to inspect the operation?” DCorliss and JHopkins responded, “Yes, the State Liquor Board.”
KPaulsen asked, “Who are the three employees?” DCorliss said, “Myself, John and a cousin are the employees and we will covering the process in three shifts. The three people will be for manufacturing only. No shipping will occur at night.” RMarshall asked. “Will there be any noise during the third shift?” “No,” responded the applicants. RMarshall asked, “Are there any dangers of explosions with this product?” “No,” was the response
.
KPaulsen asked, “Is there any security lighting.” JHopkins said, “Yes, one light which will be downcast.” MGrant asked, “If and when the church sells the adjoining property, will this business affect anyone.” DCorlis said, “There is a tree line between that property and us and this business shouldn’t affect anyone.”
8:35 p.m. Public Portion closed
RMarshall asked, “Does the Board need a site walk to see this facility in its relationship to abutters?” KO’Connell responded he is familiar with this property and sees no need for a site walk. RMarshall asked the Board, “Do you feel you could vote on this without a site walk?” The board felt they could.
PRenaud asked JHopkins, “Do you need a manufacturing license from the state?” JHopkins said, “The TTB license is first, and then the Sate Liquor commission would come next.” DCorliss said the alcoholic content of the wine will be 11-14%, but there could be some specialties as high as 20%. AHeck asked, “What are your production goals?” DCorliss said, “The first year, maybe a 1,000 gallons.
PRenaud said we need to review what items in the application are not applicable. After a quick review of the checklist, the following items need to be addressed:
· A waste disposal location
· Copy of application for sewage disposal
· Fire safety concern
PRenaud motioned to conditionally approve this plan for a meadery on condition of:
· Licensing by the NHDES for an approved septic system for disposal of waste products
· A copy of your license from State NH Liquor Commission, and TTB (ATF)
· A copy of approval by fire chief for fire safety and prevention
· An adequate disposal method of SaniClean.
KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote unanimous in favor.
9:00 Greenfield Church Design Review
RMarshall opened design review session advising of the procedures and protocol. He handed out a clipboard with a sign-up sheet for audience. He asked for their name and whether or not an abutter or just interested party. He asked Rev Osgood to explain what the Ministry is proposing.
Rev Dan Osgood said he requested this meeting to discuss our plans to renovate the property on Depot Lane. He introduced Alison Meltzer, representative from Dan Scully Architects. AMeltzer presented plans showing proposed changes to the Ministry Building (formerly American Steel) located in downtown Greenfield on Depot Lane. This project will be completed in three phases.
· Phased One will be to finish the garage to and move food pantry and thrift shop to that
location. Construction would start this summer.
· Phase Two would reconstruct central portion of the building adding a bathroom and a lift to the second floor.
· Phase Three would enlarge the northern-most side of the building and create a worship hall, including a small addition.
Parking calculation is 1 space per 3 occupants for the building. Some of the parking will come right up to the property line. The little addition on the north side will encroach on setbacks near town owned property and it has been suggested a land swap or some other accommodation with town will be needed.
RMarshall asked, “In the first phase will the apartment remain?” AMeltzer said, “Yes, that is what we propose.” RMarshall asked, “Does the apartment have its own parking spaces?” AMeltzer said they have their own spaces.
It was noted that the food pantry is servicing about 15 families and the space really isn’t adequate and moving it to the other side of the building will provide the space it needs.
PRenaud asked the Board to determine if we need a site plan review. We need to determine if we need site plan review once or three times. KO’Connell felt we could do to it all at once. “If there was a significant change, then they would have to come back for further review.”
RevOsgood presented the renderings of the proposed Ministry changes for the Board’s review. He commented the fellowship space will have its own entrance from the rest of the building with a bathroom, and a cement pad could be as an outdoor wedding location. This is an area perhaps the town could use as well.
RMarshall noted the road from the Harvester Market is used to gain access for parking for the Greenfield Meeting Place apartments. Thru traffic is happening now. I have a safety concern about the proposed green area that you are enclosing as it will reduce the access to Depot Road. The six spaces on the east side is a concern also. KO’Connell said this a right-of-way or road and needs to be defined legally. AHeck suggested that it might be possible to move those six spaces on the east side of the parking area and have it delineated with landscaping. Then it would be clear to anyone who drove through.
RMarshall asked, ”What is your energy plan?” DOsgood said we have a boiler that heats the apartment, and another boiler that needs replacing. We use a Rinai heater for the meeting area. RMarshall asked have if they considered alternatives? Rev. Osgood replied, “Not at this time.”
AMeltzer said we used one space per 3 occupants for your spacing ordinance. “Do we have any leeway?” DOsgood said that dimension is used for most church parking spaces.
RMarshall said if everything falls into place, when would you want to have this up and running? Rev Osgood said we want to be up and running as soon as possible. RMarshall said, “We are planning a charrette in September and with this being centrally located in the village, perhaps the charrette could help with ideas for the ministry.”
SChicoine said he feels that the first phase would be held up if we do a site walk for the entire project. KO’Connell, SFox, and PRenaud agreed.
KO’Connell motioned that no site plan review is needed for Phase 1 because there is no change of use. SFox seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
AMeltzer will have a formal application ready for the second Monday in June for Phase 2 and 3 at 7:30 p.m. She will need to get clarification on the right-of-way
RMarshall said he will continue this discussion on the design site review for 5/19 for 7:30 p.m.
SFox said she felt that the church could go to the ZBA to get a variance for the side setback for the 3rd phase building. RMarshall advised that getting the variance will help move along the site plan review. He offered to assist Rev. Osgood with the variance application.
9:55 p.m. Other Business:
RMarshall said, “We have said that we would continue our conversation about the preservation of the town. People spoke strongly against the heritage district but suggested that incentives would might promote the preservation of the rural character of the town. One incentive idea is easements for restoration of barns. I’ve been asked by the ConCom to return to their roadside Round-up thank you dinner. I’d like to reach out to community members to solicit input on the incentives idea. AHeck said “Any time there is a gathering and discussion happens, that’s a good thing. I really want those people who are opposed to this heritage district at a meeting and to get their ideas. The video that you presented in March was wonderful and should be used again at this roundup meeting.”
RMarshall said there used to be a Greenfield Improvement Association. Maybe we should bring this back. Perhaps we need to find a way to provide funding, and offer a plaque or award of some kind to the greatest improved property in town. The creation of a voluntary committee to come up with incentives for improvement across the town might be an alternative agreeable to all. He will communicate this idea at the Round-up dinner as our next step in the process. .
KO’Connell asked if there was any communication from GMitchell. RMarshall responded, “Zero communication.” He is going to communicate tomorrow, April 15 to GMitchell to get a status update on the items remaining for completion.
10:25 p.m. Adjournment
KO’Connell motioned to adjourn. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
