Planning Board
Town of Greenfield
APPROVED Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Janice Pack
July 25, 2016
Members Present: Paul Renaud, Ken Paulsen, Andre Wood, Sherry Fox, Angelique Moon
Meeting Opened: 7:05 PM
Minutes: The minutes were read by PRenaud. KPaulsen motioned to accept the minutes as amended. This was seconded by SFox, and all were in favor.
The Board discussed whether or not the Allrose Farm Country Weddings lighting plan actually did need a public hearing. PRenaud told the Board that he wanted to read an RSA, and also stated that a letter from an abutter was received by the Select Board. The Select Board forwarded this letter to PRenaud. He asked if he should read the letter or not.
AWood felt that regardless of what the letter said, it might fall outside the window; however, if the letter speaks directly to the lighting plan, perhaps it does fall inside the window. KPaulsen said that when the public hearing was open, there was opportunity for anyone to offer commentary.
Michele Perron entered the meeting, and PRenaud told her that the Select Board had received a letter from an abutter.
Ken Paulsen recused himself at this time (7:30 PM)
PRenaud read RSA 676:4, Paragraph I, subparagraph (i) and the Board discussed how it applied to this situation. The RSA basically says that if a discretionary decision is made, public comment should be heard. One of the main criteria used to decide that we didn’t need a public hearing for the lighting plan is that we have a lighting ordinance for safety.
SFox said that during the original public hearing, lighting WAS discussed. We do have a lighting ordinance, and if this lighting plan meets it, it’s not really “discretionary”. PRenaud said “Would this be considered a minor plan change?” MPerron asked who the abutter was, and if the Board was going to take away her conditional approval now because of this letter. The answer was No, even if an additional Public Hearing was necessitated, it would be in relation to final approval. The conditional approval would stand. SFox said that if the plan complies with our lighting ordinance, it should be fine and not warrant another public hearing. AWood felt that this was a minor plan change. PRenaud said that anyone could put up additional lighting without going before the Board.
AWood asked if we were comfortable stating that the lighting plan meets our approval? He said that he thinks, based on the RSA, that this is non-discretionary. AWood stated that the tweak we made actually lessened the lumens.
PRenaud read the letter of concern regarding Allrose Farm from the Lehners, which was addressed to the Select Board, and forwarded to PRenaud from Aaron Patt. The Board discussed the concerns of the letter, and felt that we are in line with the intent. AWood felt that since the letter was not addressed to us, we did not need to respond. We have already addressed their issues. AWood proposed that we look at MPerron’s lighting plan. According to her plan, she was not leaking light outside of her property line. The only change from the original plan was that the one new light was moved so that the trees would shield the light. The lights would not be on when not in use. The Board was happy with the new plan.
AWood reiterated “We took public comment on the lighting plan during the original public hearing. The lighting plan has never not complied. We merely imposed another condition, an additional condition for safety reasons.”
PRenaud said again that the key thing is that the lighting plan has always been in compliance. The lighting plan was in the original submission. MPerron did not ask for the waiver. We merely asked for an improvement on her original plan.
AWood made a motion: “The original plan, having always been compliant to the lighting ordinance, and subsequent refinements being minor in nature and not altering compliance, I move that there is no need to reopen a public hearing to determine compliance with this condition”. SFox seconded the motion; all were in favor (4-0).
As to the plan itself, AWood said “I like it”. SFox made a motion: “We feel that this meets the conditions for the lighting plan, and is in compliance with the ordinance.” AMoon seconded the motion; all were in favor (4-0).
MPerron asked if the Planning Board was going to respond to the letter. PRenaud said he would discuss it further with APatt. If the Select Board wants the Planning Board to reply, we will.
The Board gave MPerron a copy of the Event Facility Record and Tracking Form for her review.
At 8:55 MPerron left the meeting. KPaulsen unrecused himself.
The form itself was discussed. KPaulsen suggested boxes in the Type of Event section, and AMoon suggested a section at the bottom for other considerations, and checkboxes for Alcohol, DJ, and Outside Activities. She also suggested Start and End times.
The Board asked if the form needed to be submitted for a group of less than 25. AMoon argued that for tracking purposes, we did want to have the form submitted regardless of number of participants. AWood agreed that we are just trying to gather information. This will allow us to determine if the ordinance is working. KPaulsen thought the checkboxes would allow us to see which types of events were happening more often. He suggested checkboxes like Weddings, Family Reunions, Conference, Seminars, Workshops, and Other (please specify). PRenaud asked “How far in advance would the form need to be submitted?” Answers were from 5 days to 2 weeks; more lead time would be needed for larger events. It was agreed that this form would be available on the website for submission.
Would the submissions be numbered? What happens if an event is cancelled? Could this form be tied in to the Town’s current website? Maybe if the Town’s current package could be utilized, it could also be used by the Fire Department for burn permits, etc. What is the best way to implement this form? This conversation opened another as to whether or not the Town is getting a good value for their money by the way their website is hosted. Google Forms was mentioned as a possible source for this event form.
What will the procedure be? Should the forms go to Catherine Shaw, and then she would forward them to the appropriate departments? (Police, Planning Board, Code Enforcement, etc.) PRenaud will revise the form per our comments tonight, and we can refine it as it goes along.
Mail: SWRPC Commission Highlights newsletter dated June 2016
PRenaud passed out the updated zoning maps, and updated Tax Maps
PRenaud mentioned a Minor Subdivision and Lot Line adjustment from the Kokals which would be coming before the Board potentially in August.
For the Master Plan, PRenaud wants to talk to Lisa Murphy. We have $2500 budgeted for Master Plan updates. Future Land Use still needs to be done, and PRenaud doesn’t believe we have the final, approved hard copies for Construction Materials, or Traffic and Transportation, or Community Facilities. This updated data needs to be included. He wonders why we are wasting time and money on this; much of the information is geared toward larger towns and he feels uncomfortable paying another $1,000 for them to edit 4-1/2 pages. Many of the previous edits were so minimal that it didn’t make sense to pay for them to be done outside. The Vision Statement online, Draft 2, is a separate link, and not included in the Master Plan.
AWood suggested that we ask for the official revisions in electronic form. PRenaud asked the members of the Board if they thought they could do the Future Land Use and Energy chapters themselves. AWood thought that the Board could. PRenaud added that the Board needs to review the Sign Ordinance in the fall.
PRenaud motioned to adjourn. AMoon seconded this, and all were in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:06 PM (These minutes were Approved at our meeting 8.8.16)
| 
