Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2005
Board convenes at 7:00 pm to conduct business session. Sitting on the board is Kevin O’Connell, Dan Dineen, Dale Sanford, Craig Pettigrew and Roger Phelps. The Board reviews mail including a letter from the Voymas pertaining to tonight’s hearing, and a handout from Office of Energy and Planning. Kevin relays to the board that John Gryval will be arriving a little late from Albany. Roger recuses himself from to nights hearing.
Craig explains to the audience that John is running a little late, and the hearing will be starting about fifteen minutes late.
John arrives at 7:45, explains to the forum why we are here and opens the rehearing of case 05-3. John asks if proper notification was sent and posted, Kevin replies yes. John asks Ms. Johnson to present her case.
Ms. Johnson explains her case with the current changes, presenting from her mission statement. She has scaled back the proposed number of employees and consequently will only be asking for the special exception and one variance for parking spaces. Ms. Johnson explains that she has reduced the number of dogs and hours of operation. There will be 4-6 dogs per class; self serve grooming on Saturday with chemical free products. The daycare will be 7:30 to 6, with 10 dogs max. The dogs will be supervised at all times. There’ll be no chain link fencing and no outdoor barking. Outdoor time will be after 9:00. The owner and one employee will run the operation. The business entrance will be at the rear of the barn. There’ll be a trainer and one daycare employee. She believes this complies with Section 7 of the town’s
Master Plan.
Attorney Silas Little, representing Ms. Johnson states they have the MSDS (material safety data sheets) for the products and they are all safe to pass through a leach field. He also states that as to the special exception this would not constitute an adverse use, no more than a day care. Atty. Little furthers that this is not boarding but daycare, the abutter’s impact would be minimal, and the use would be incidental. A variance for parking is required as a service business requires more parking, but is within the spirit of the ordinance. Water consumption would be the same as a family of four.
Dan asks Atty. Little what was the error that required this case to be reheard?
Atty. Little responds that Alcorn vs. Rochester. The Board gave a conclusionary statement; it’s required to give a finding of fact, what were the underlying facts for the denial.
John asks Atty. Little, keeping in tune with the spirit of the ordinance, where do you come up with the definition of Boarding. Atty. replies that boarding is food and shelter.
John and Atty. Little enter a discussion of boarding’s meaning, RSA 21 construction of works, common and ordinary meaning.
John asks the forum if anyone in favor would like to speak.
Barbara Metivier, from Colonial Drive states she would like to see the business operate.
Gerry Lass, from Slip Road states Ms. Johnson’s character is good, the business will be first class, five star.
Willard Williams, Muzzy Hill Road also attests to the character Ms. Johnson, who does his books, and that she did a nice job on nearby house when she was his neighbor.
Nell Conkright of Forest Road states the dogs she trains are well behaved.
Jarvis Adams asks, “After the last hearing was the water issue the reason for denial?”
John replies that the board felt boarding was outside the zoning intent, and that traffic was also an issue.
Jarvis replies that he thought that the plan for the downtown was suppose to be friendly to business.
Dan explains that the board felt that the use was not secondary to the use of the property, that it was not incidental.
Atty. Little states that the property will appear the same on the outside, as residential property. And if boarding is not defined in the ordinance, then the common use of the definition applies.
John asks for any more in favor?
Kathryn Bynam, from Lyndeborough, states Ms. Johnson is a professional and as she stated in her original proposal that she’ll keep the barns’ character the same.
Marcia Neuhardt, from Peterborough speaks of other possible buyers she’s shown the property to, they could have a farm or they could have ATV usage.
John ask if any opposed?
Judy Dansy (?) from Francestown Road states she’s concerned with the traffic. The character of the property. “If residential means anything, it’s residential!”
After visiting the Kennel at Noone Falls in Peterborough, she found the place hectic. Dogs barking, people yelling. The bylaws must be held up if they’re to mean anything.
Jerry Adams from Forest Road states that the house isn’t in the district it needs to be in to do this. It’s in the Village district, and for a special exception to be granted it has to be authorized by the ordinance.
John reads the ordinance to the forum, and explains that the board’s decision cannot be arbitrary. The board has to weigh the facts.
Jerry Adams continues, unless the ordinance specifically authorizes the exception, the board cannot grant one.
George Rainier, Old Bennington Road reads paragraph 1 of the ordinance, “Uses not considered to be home occupations include …animal boarding except equine and care.”
Atty. Little states that the ordinance has to be read to allow care.
The Board enters a discussion of how equine was added to the ordinance. Kevin states that equine was added a couple of years ago when the state passed a law by barring towns from prohibiting boarding of horses. Dale reads old town ordinance, before “equine” was added.”Uses not considered to be home occupations include …animal boarding and care.”
Sue Morash states she’s not questioning Ms. Johnson’s’ character, she just asks “Is this business in the right place? Will there be one business in this location, or two? Can two business be in the same location?”
Ms. Johnson replies that the bookkeeping business was started in Greenfield under a special exception, so she should have no problem meeting the requirements.
Sue Morash asks what will happen to the waste.
Ms. Johnson states it’ll be picked–up and disposed of legally by a by a disposal firm.
Sue Morash states that the septic is not the only issue, that she’s concerned about nitrates during business hours, parking, traffic, and lighting. She’s also concerned with runoff form the site.
Ms. Johnson states that the lot is fairly flat, with the dog walk area over the septic system, and discusses the lighting plan.
John Gryval reads a letterform Mr. Voynes into the record.
Ms. Johnson sates traffic will consist of people already going through town, other traffic will be the six vehicles going to the class, and since the traffic will be turning, it will be slower.
John asks if anymore to speak in opposition?
Ray Coy state he’s all for the business.
Atty. Little talks of the traffic impact and states it’ll be miniscule; he discusses the requirements of the special exception, and states that upon reasonable analysis the plan fits the ordinance.
John closes the public session at 9:30, and the board takes a short recess.
During deliberations the discussion focuses on the special exception ordinance, the addition of equine to the ordinance.
Craig motions to deny the appeal.
Seconded by Dale.
Board votes on motion, motion caries unanimously.
John explains the reason for denial to Ms. Johnson citing.
1. That the use was not clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the site as defined in Section IV.B.2.a.
2. The use could not be carried out wholly within a dwelling or a structure accessory to the dwelling as defined in Section IV.B.2.b.
3. The use would constitute a variation in the residential character of the site, and would contain more than four (4) off-street parking spaces in total required by the use on a regular basis, and traffic volume would exceed that ordinarily associated with a residential use.
The Board held elections for the coming year with the following results,
John Gryval re-elected Chair. Roger Phelps requested to step down as vice chair and nominated Dan Dineen. Dan Dineen elected vice-chair. Kevin O’Connell re-elected to secretary.
Motion made to adjourn by Roger @ 10:00, motion seconded and carried.
| 
