Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Ken Paulsen
June 22, 2015
Members present: RMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell, SFox, KPaulsen, AWood, AHeck, MSteere
7:00 p.m. Meeting Minutes
PRenaud began reading the June 8, 2015 meeting minutes. Minor spelling changes were made. Substantive change made to Lines 51-53 and should read “RMarshall said a ZBA variance would be less costly, but a lot line adjustment would be even more costly. After more discussion, a lot line adjustment might be the least costly and easiest solution for HMitchell.”
A motion was made to accept the minutes and seconded. Vote was unanimous.
7:20 p.m. Mail Received:
- Ledger-Transcript bill
- Upton & Hatfield bill
7:30 p.m. All Rose Farm (ARF) Public Hearing
The hearing opened with KO’Connell explaining the rules of procedure and that the only issue to be discussed is whether or not ARF has met the definition of hotel. The public attendance clipboard was passed around.
KPaulsen recused himself from the hearing because of statements he made at a prior hearing as a member of the public. He was asked to take minutes in place of SRozzi who could not attend the meeting. RMarshall was then asked to sit as a voting member.
Attorney JCronin presented a letter to KO’Connell requesting that RMarshall not participate because of public statements that suggest he has a bias and because of that he could have a significant influence on other board members.
PRenaud consulted RSA 674:14 that pertains to recusal which leaves the decision to the member on whether or not he elects to step down. RMarshall stated that “I will not recuse. I have attended all the meetings and have the knowledge to make an objective decision.”
JFletcher asked RMarshall if he had made any statements that showed bias. RMarshall replied that he spoke to the fact that Greenfield Zoning Ordinance [Ref: Section II. Definitions, letter N, Section III. Districts, E. General Residence District, 6 – revised 3/10/15] does allow hotels in the general residence district. He also spoke to the fact that the Planning Board had not made any decision that required a ZBA meeting.
JReimers presented the case for ARF being a hotel where destination weddings would be conducted. It could also be used for family reunions. ARF is insured as a hotel and pays the NH sales tax for hotels. Guests must stay overnight. Weddings are conducted in a sunken garden and the barn is used as a reception area. ARF does not have any agriculture and therefore the recent court decision regarding “agritourism” did not apply. No controlling state law defines hotel. Several different dictionary definitions of “hotel” were read.
JReimers then proceeded to cover definitions of “transient”. Every guest of ARF is a transient and must stay 2-3 nights. Hotels are defined in a variety of ways in the RSAs but they do not override the Greenfield Zoning Ordinance definition. He concluded by referencing the consultant’s report to the Planning Board where she concluded that ARF is a hotel in a general residence district and is allowed.
8:30 p.m. JCronin presented the case against ARF. He stated, “We have a proposed land use, but not a permitted use.” He referenced past printed information which referenced ARF as a home based business then as a hotel. Guests are invited, they are not transients. ARF is a destination wedding venue. He could not find any information that used the word “hotel” in conjunction with ARF. The Greenfield definition of hotel cannot be a secondary use.
JCronin suggested that the 2015 warrant article regarding setbacks was the wrong issue.
The real issue is that ARF is primarily a destination venue and not a hotel.
8:40 p.m. Public input
DHedstrom couldn’t conceive of how ARF is a hotel. “It is a wedding event center. It depletes the value of abutting property. We have a right to defend our property.”
SPonnouyer referenced the Universal Building Code definition of hotel.
SMoller said “ARF looks like a hotel, acts like a hotel. Activities at ARF are no more detrimental than the noise from other residents holding parties.”
MCavenaugh suggested that two businesses exist; one is a hotel and the other is an event center. Only one is allowed in a residential district. Opening it up for both would prompt others to take on additional activities. He referenced two Monadnock Ledger articles neither of which mentioned ARF as a hotel.
SPonnouyer added that the building code states hotels typically have accessory uses and event rooms.
With no more discussion, KO’Connell closed the public input.
8:55p.m. Planning Board discussion
PRenaud stated that there are three RSA definitions of hotel and it is clear from the statutes that each one applies to a particular situation. He made a motion that the Planning Board only considers the definition in the Greenfield Zoning Ordinance. It was seconded by RMarshall. The vote was unanimous.
RMarshall asked how many rooms are available for lodging. MPerron stated that all facilities are rented as a block for $575 a night. One night stays are not an option. That is a marketing decision.
JFletcher asked if the word “primarily” is used to refer to lodging. Both JReimers and JCronin agreed.
RMarshall asked how many stayed for just a non wedding weekend. MPerron responded about 20. RMarshall asked how many stayed for other events. MPerron replied 80-100.
RMarshall asked if ARF is a member of any business association. MPerron replied “not yet.”
KO’Connell asked how many weddings have been conducted. MPerron replied, “six, three that were paid, two where money was refunded because of cease and desist order and one that was for a friend whom she did not charge.”
SFox stated “The rent is $575/ night. Are there any additional charges?” MPerron, replied, “They are paying a room rent only. All other facilities are included.”
Discussion on wording of a motion ensued for a period of time.
AWood said, “The accessory use is really the primary use and, therefore, is a commercial use not allowed in the residential district.”
AWood made the following motion: “Table the application because the primary use as a wedding venue is not a permitted use in the General Residence District.”
PRenaud seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous.
10:28 p.m. Adjournment
KPaulsen motioned to adjourn. KO’Connell seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor.
| 
