Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Mike Borden
June 11, 2012
Members present: SChicoine, RWimpory, MBorden, PRenaud; KO’Connell, JFletcher; RMarshall, MSteere (Alt)
7:05 p.m. Minutes
PRenaud read the minutes of the May 21, 2012 meeting.
The following changes were made:
· Line numbers need to be inserted.
· Minor punctuation and capitalization changes were made.
· RMarshall reported that he had not included the minutes from the Site Walk on Cornwell and County Roads and that he would do so in the official minutes.
KO'Connell moved to accept the minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded. All in favor, the motion carried.
· SWRPC Commission Highlights
· Letter From PSNH requesting Public Hearing for Tree Trimming- Cavendar Road
· Planning Board Budget, YTD
· Code Enforcement Officer-Greenfield Building Permits Report
7:15 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower
PRenaud and SChicoine recused themselves from the discussion. MSteere was asked to sit in.
RMarshall presented a draft of a letter to JSpringer, attorney representing applicant Florida Tower Partners. The contents of the letter informed Mr. Springer that a year had passed (May 23, 2011) since the tentative approval had been issued by the Planning Board. Since final approval had not been achieved, the Planning Board viewed the tentative approval void. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Board that no further action was needed at this time. The Planning Board will review the application once more after June 23, 2012.
7:38 Lot Lines, Subdivisions and Survey Conflicts
PRenaud and SChicoine returned to active participation. MBorden recused himself from the discussion. RMarshall asked CEO Peter Hopkins to review the recent controversy surrounding the construction of the Sousa home on Cornwell Road. He explained the process he follows for the issuance of a building permit. In cases where it is appropriate (due to lot size or other conditions unique to each case) he may require a certified plot plan, which he did in this case. Dan Sousa had installed the foundation at his own risk until the certification was received. The certified plot plan revealed that Mr. Sousa was in compliance with setbacks and the building permit was issued.
RMarshall asked PHopkins what actions the Planning Board and the town in general might take to avoid potential conflicts result from surveys and existing deeds. MBorden noted that the existence of lot R6-38 as it exists in the certified plot plan only emerged in 2007 following the Belmore subdivision. Prior to that, it was described as being much larger in the old deed.
General discussion ensued about how surveyors do their job and subdivision procedures.
JGryval, Chair of the ZBA and present at the request of RMarshall, asked two questions. "Might we request that when surveyors are surveying for subdivisions that they note any discrepancies In boundary lines that they find." He also suggested that when we are doing re-evaluations we ask assessors to note any inconsistencies they find between what is in the record and what they find in their visits. RWimpory suggested that RMarshall might consult with Town Administrator APatt to examine the contract with tax evaluators to see if they look at properties with no buildings on them.
8:17 Zoning Ordinance Complaint
MBorden returned to active participation. PHopkins reported that he had received a formal written complaint from a resident about the compliance of the Todd Smith property on Forest road with the Zoning Ordinance. The property is in the General Residence District. The complaint alleged potential violations including conducting a business, pond construction without a permit, potential septic violations and other issues. RMarshall noted that he is aware of two separate occasions when school children have been on field trips to the site to visit the Ironton Museum. To his knowledge there has never been a Site Plan Review for the property.
PHopkins also noted that there is a property dispute between Mr. Smith and his neighbor over an old road on the properties that he believes will come before Selectmen. Discussion ensued over whether or not the old road had been abandoned.
RWimpory asked PHopkins what issues were within his jurisdiction In this case? PHopkins said since a septic issue was a state permit question, that was not a local matter unless work was done without a permit. A copy of a state permit in the property file would answer the septic question. A home based business would require a Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. In addition, the new Groundwater Protection Ordinance was a local issue because the property in question is in the Groundwater Protection District.
It was felt that the only real issue that could be addressed was the existence of the Ironton Museum and whether or not it is a situation that requires a Site Plan Review.
A member of the public asked permission to speak. The Planning Board agreed to hear his contribution. Resident Ken Paulsen noted that a segment on the Ironton Museum had been broadcast on WMUR TV last year.
PHopkins and RMarshall will attend the Selectman's Meeting on Tuesday, June 12 to discuss these issues.
Further discussion ensued about compliance with the Site Plan Review process and the new Groundwater Protection Ordinance. RMarshall read from the Zoning Ordinance Section IV B Professional Uses and Customary Home Occupations, and further discussion took place about encouraging compliance. No further action was taken at this point.
9:07 Community Planning Grant
RMarshall explained that an opportunity for the town to participate in a Community Planning Grant had emerged since our last meeting. He had begun the application and was seeking permission from the Planning Board to continue with the application. The grant would include a review of our Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulation and Site Plan Review Regulation. As a result of our Master Plan Visioning exercises that we have completed this spring, people indicated that they wanted to preserve the rural character of the Town, protect historical properties and promote economic development. Using a $10,000 grant (which would require $625 in cash and then other contributions in volunteer work by the Planning Board) we could look at the possibility of creating a Neighborhood Heritage District where features of our village neighborhood might be
preserved while promoting economic development. The proposal would commit the Planning Board to work on this initiative for two years resulting in:
· Ordinance Review
· Exploration/creation of a Neighborhood Advisory Committee.
· Exploration/creation of a Neighborhood Heritage District.
The Planning Board agreed to have RMarshall continue with the grant writing and submit the application by the deadline of June 15, 2012.
MSteere moved to adjourn, PRenaud seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried.