Planning Board
Town of Greenfield
Approved Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Janice Pack
September 12, 2016
Members Attending: Paul Renaud, Ken Paulsen, Robert Marshall, Sherry Fox, Angelique Moon, Andre Wood
Meeting Opened: 7:02 PM
Minutes: PRenaud read the minutes and 4 corrections were made. AMoon made a motion to accept the minutes; RMarshall seconded, and all were in favor.
Mail: SWRPC Monthly Flyer, Unclaimed Certified Mail letter addressed to Steven Anthony (from Kokal hearing), flyer from NBI regarding an event called Land Use and Zoning from Start to Finish, a flyer from SFI Implementation Committee regarding the NH Sustainable Forestry Initiative to be held in New London on 9/23/16, cash receipt for $370 received from Andrej Kokal, a letter dated 9/2/16 from TFM regarding a proposed Telecommunications Tower in Hooksett NH, the A/P folder with an invoice for $123 from the Ledger-Transcript (Kokal noticing) and an invoice from Staples for $55.99 for the PB envelopes
PRenaud mentioned the Municipal Association’s Fall lecture series starting on Wednesday 9/14/16, and running the next 3 Wednesdays. Next week’s lecture is on Recusals.
PRenaud announced that he had received an email today from Jim Fletcher who said that unless we absolutely needed him to make a quorum, he will not be able to make any further meetings because of family obligations. He is willing to resign his position if we have someone willing to step in. PRenaud said that he might have someone he can ask to step in for at least the next 6 months, and he asked if anyone else had anyone in mind who might like to be a part of the Planning Board.
RMarshall said we should discuss what we want to do. He said, “We need 7 members here, so perhaps we should encourage JFletcher to resign and see if someone else may want to come in. It would give someone a great opportunity to see if they would like to continue next year for the full year.“
PRenaud asked if we wanted to ask JFletcher to stay on as an alternate. RMarshall said, “Alternates are also supposed to show up, and in order to be able to participate, they would need to be attending meetings regularly. Alternates actively participate, they just do not vote if there is a quorum present.”
AWood feels that we should keep JFletcher on as an Alternate. KPaulsen and AMoon agreed that we should ask him for his resignation, and to state his desire to be an Alternate at least through March. That will allow the Planning Board to pursue a regular member.
PRenaud gave a quick update on Allrose Farm. He received an email from Michelle Perron who has some events planned, but will not be opening as a business until next year. The Select Board has some concerns regarding our event form but we will have plenty of time to address those.
PRenaud read the response from Town Counsel to the question of whether or not the Kokal’s proposal was for a Major or a Minor subdivision. Town Counsel advised that they do consider this a Minor Subdivision. However, in the definition it also states there is no potential for re-subdivision on an existing street. The Board discussed the definition of Minor versus Major:
- We can do an expedited review (application submitted, accepted and approved at one meeting)
- We have a lot more leeway to not require certain things on the plat
- The application fee is less than the fee for a major subdivision
- PRenaud said that he did not feel there was anything pressing that would change. AWood said we just did not want to create any complications down the road. Everyone agreed that we were all set to proceed.
7:30 PM Kokal Farm Minor Subdivision & Lot Line Adjustment – Public Hearing continued
PRenaud moved to Close the Public Hearing at this time if there are no objections. There were none.
Stephanie Kokal entered the meeting, and PRenaud told her what Town Counsel had decided – that this was a minor subdivision. The one provision for resubdivision was again brought up, but at this point, PRenaud did not feel there was anything that would prohibit us from moving forward.
Nathan Chamberlin, Senior Civil Engineer from Fieldstone Land Consultants, PLLC presented the proposal: Two lots currently, one lot line would be adjusted, and two new lots would be created. NChamberlin passed out the new plats for the Board to review, and AWood pointed out that one of the proposed wells shown on the new plat had moved. The square footage had been added to the lot blocks on the plats, and the proposed lot numbers were verified by Catherine Shaw. The well radii were added. The proposed buildings are not shown, but NChamberlin agreed that they would probably be put near the wells.
PRenaud noted that the changes we had asked for had been made. He confirmed that the Board was okay with not having the exact locations of the proposed buildings at this time. RMarshall moved that we approve the application for minor subdivision and lot line adjustment. AMoon seconded it. There was no further discussion. The Board voted unanimously to approve, 6-0.
PRenaud noted the receipt of the first check for $370, which covered the Application fee and the Abutter Notification. There is an additional $82 newspaper noticing fee, and a per lot approval fee of $50 (3 lots - $150). There is no fee for the lot line adjustment. The Registry Recording fees are $40 for the filing of the Mylar, for a total due the Town of $272.
There is a separate check required for $25 made payable to the Hillsborough County Treasurer for the LCHIP fee.
SKokal made out the required checks and PRenaud received them and gave her receipts.
The drawings were signed, but the Board found they had only four copies plus the Mylar, so PRenaud requested two more, which NChamberlin said he would bring over to CShaw.
SKokal and NChamberlin left the meeting.
Procedures review in Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regulations
PRenaud opened a discussion of the revocation of approval in a subdivision (page 4) Section III.M when an applicant has failed to perform any conditions within the time specified, does that pertain only to conditions subsequent or to conditions precedent. He is waiting for answers from Legal to those questions.
Section III. Scope of Review, taken from the handbook put out by the Regional Planning Committee, which PRenaud mentioned in the 8/8/16 meeting, was discussed. Copies were handed out which detailed several items that would trigger a Site Plan Review, and several Activities Not Subject to Site Plan Review. Suggestions were made on how to make it easier for a potential applicant to know how to move forward. On the back, Section V., Paragraph C. Expedited Review was discussed, and PRenaud thought that we might also want to add similar language. An Expedited Review would give us more leeway to waive items that would perhaps cause impact, but on a small scale. The Board agreed on this paragraph, omitting #2. When new construction is no greater than
2,500 square feet in area. RMarshall moved that we adopt both, and leave the formatting up to PRenaud.
Discussion went back to conditional approvals and timelines of expiration. AWood felt that if we were going to set a timeline into our approvals, we needed to be very specific. He was all for that, and felt it would reduce the Board’s risk and eliminate much of the need for tracking; making enforcement easier. KPaulsen wanted to know who was going to keep track of expiration dates.
RMarshall thought that the only thing with a restricted timeframe currently was the 12-month period for construction of a building. A few other examples were discussed. RMarshall stated that we did want to be careful of making it so onerous that we were not able to attract new business. PRenaud reiterated that we just wanted to make it easier.
PRenaud passed out a handout regarding Planning Board Comment on ZBA Applications. The handout originated when Kevin O’Connell asked several questions in an email, and received several responses including two from lawyers. PRenaud wanted everyone to read it over for discussion in the near future.
PRenaud brought the Board up to date on his conversation earlier tonight with John Hopkins. JHopkins said it took him a long time to get what he needed to get the federal permit, and he is still waiting for state approval. PRenaud is concerned that JHopkins is planning to put in a septic that is not going to be a solution, as he thinks the septic would fail if it were used as a sewage disposal system.
In closing, PRenaud asked all to review Pages 383 and 384 in the NH Planning & Land Use Regulation, Paragraph VI Open Space Subdivision so that this can be discussed at our next meeting.
AMoon motioned to adjourn, KPaulsen seconded, and all were in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM.
These minutes were approved at our regular meeting on September 26, 2016.
| 
