Planning Board
Town of Greenfield
Approved Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Janice Pack
November 28, 2016
Members Attending: Paul Renaud, Robert Marshall, Steve Chicoine (taking over vacant spot), Ken Paulsen, Andrew Heck (Alternate), (AHeck is sitting in for Andre Wood tonight, and will be voting), Sherry Fox, Angelique Moon
Meeting Opened: 7:00 PM
Minutes: The Minutes were read by PRenaud. A few corrections were made, and RMarshall motioned to accept the minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded and all were in favor.
Mail
5 copies each of the updated Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review Regulations, both revised 11/14/16, were in our mailbox. The 3 flyers received at the last meeting were reviewed.
New Business
AMoon raised the question of the start time of our meeting. She would prefer that it start earlier, say 6:00 PM instead. The Board discussed this possible change. RMarshall mentioned a 6:30 PM start time. A non-binding informational vote was taken. All present were in favor of a 6:00 PM start time. PRenaud will speak with AWood, and if he is in agreement, the change will begin at the first meeting in January 2017.
Continuing with the 2017 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Proposals
The previous discussion of Amendment 4 regarding whether or not 4-family apartment buildings were able to be erected while still preserving the character of the district, and whether or not they belonged in the General Residence District, was unresolved because of the definition of what an apartment building was. It’s called out to have separate entrances and a common hallway. Some apartments have separate entrances and no common hallways. The description of multifamily in the Master Plan could be added to clarify our definition. We do not have a clear definition of what an apartment is outside of the dwelling unit definition. RMarshall said we should define apartment first. AMoon read the definition of Dwelling Unit, and thought it could be adjusted slightly to define apartment.
RMarshall doesn’t want someone coming in to town and putting up new apartment buildings that are not in keeping with the character of the town, but might be okay with existing larger buildings being divided into apartments.
PRenaud asked if we wanted to have more housing options, not only to help seniors, but to attract younger people into our town. We are differentiating an accessory dwelling unit from an apartment. AHeck asked if it wouldn’t create a problem – say if someone had 6 acres and a house that wouldn’t be easy to convert. It might be more attractive to tear it down and put up a 4-apartment building.
PRenaud reminded everyone that anything above a 2 family would need to have a Site Plan Review anyway, and at that time, it would be decided if the proposed building kept with the characteristics of the town.
After much discussion, this was agreed upon: “Apartment shall mean a residential structure with multiple individual dwelling units, with or without a common entrance and/or common hallway, but with no direct access between dwelling units”. “The lot size shall be not less than 1.5 acres for each dwelling unit within the apartment, with off-street parking for 2 cars per unit”.
AHeck motioned to move Amendment 4 forward with these changes to present at the public hearing. SFox seconded it, and all were in favor.
Amendment 7. There was a good deal of discussion at our last meeting because of the language concerning how many “persons outside the household shall be employed in the use” and the use of the word “customary”. It is the intention of the Board to be less restrictive and more flexible. It had been decided during that discussion to only mandate a site plan review when the property was sold if there was an increase in the impact or intensity of use. However, RMarshall feels that we should leave the site plan review requirement in there because if there is a new owner of the business, he needs to know what the expectations of the Town are.
AHeck said it would be better to add “any increase in number of employees on site requires a site plan review” and RMarshall added “the number of employees will be determined during a site plan review”.
AHeck motioned to move Amendment 7 forward to Public Hearing with the proposed changes. RMarshall seconded it. All were in favor except KPaulsen, who abstained.
Amendments 11 and 12. Apartment buildings are currently only allowed in the General Resident District. These amendments are to allow apartment buildings in the Business District and the Center Village District respectively. These will be contingent on passage of Amendment 4.
PRenaud moved to put Amendment 11 forward as amended to Public Hearing; this was seconded by AHeck, and all were in favor.
AHeck moved to put Amendment 12 forward with the additions discussed tonight to Public Hearing. AMoon seconded this, and all were in favor.
Amendment 14 – To Amend Section III.DISTRICTS
Last year when changes were made, and the town was divided into 5 districts rather than 4, a few omissions/errors were made. This Amendment clarifies/corrects the districts. The second half of this amendment refers to Adult Oriented Businesses. AMoon moved to put Amendment 14 forward to Public Hearing; this was seconded by AHeck and all were in favor.
Amendment 13 – To Amend Section III.DISTRICTS, A. Business District
This amendment would change the frontage requirement from not less than 150’ to not less than 50’. The side setback requirement was also discussed. The Board would like to set this at 10’. RMarshall suggested that we talk to Mike Borden about the minimums. AMoon moved to put Amendment 13 forward to Public Hearing based on what MBorden recommends. SFox seconded this, and all were in favor.
The Public Hearing for these amendments will be held on January 9th. PRenaud reserves the right to renumber the amendments to put like ones together. The Board agreed.
SFox moved to adjourn the meeting, and AMoon seconded. All were in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 9:58 PM.
THESE MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED AT OUR REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 12, 2016.
.
| 
