Preliminary
Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2006
The Board re-convenes at 8:00 pm.
John reopens public hearing 06-3, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC of Peterborough, NH, for properties located at 13 Gulf Road; R9-66, and 124 Russell Station Road; R9-65 for a special exception from restrictions of the Wetland Conservation District; article III section I.2.d.1.
Sitting on the board is John Gryval, Dan Dineen, Roger Phelps, Craig Pettigrew, and Kevin O’Connell.
John explains the events to date and the site walk taken by the board on Saturday, Junes 3, and that no votes were taken, nor substantive discussion was held
Attorney Norris recaps his case from May 30, states he feels they’ve put their best foot forward, and states the more he reads the ordinance, the more he believes the ordinance is appropriate, allows the relief for reasonable use of the land, and that the special exception provision makes sense as applied to this property.
Sharon Maloney, states the property has be use as it is, it’s been logged, so the owner has used the property.
Michael Maloney talks of buffer zone concerns, traffic congestion, and making access discussion black and white, the access they want of no access, isn’t true.
He talks of level of access, one house, or more. How can the board determine minimized impact without more information?
Attorney Norris replies that the special exception allows for access fir minimum impact, not whatever they want, this group would still have to go through the planning stage.
Dan Dineen; “Do you have any finding for minimum impact?”
Attorney Norris; “Not yet, it wouldn’t be fair to incur the cost at this stage.”
Ron Bourcier; “Impact for the whole development?”
Dan Dineen; “No, just the crossing.”
Ron Bourcier; “It depends on what the Planning Board requires. But we’ll keep it to a minimum.”
Attorney Norris; “The ordinance requires minimum impact, not no impact.”
Dan Dineen:” The ordinance also says …(special exception I.2.d.2)
Attorney Norris; ”That’s not what we’re here for, we’re just here under article I.2.d.1.”
George Rainier asks of the ownership of the properties.
Attorney Norris replies that Brundige and O’Brien own them and that they have a contractual agreement and power of attorney in this case.
John talks of the application stating an access 31.5 feet wide with roadway 24 foot and 3 foot drainage.
Roger Swain talks of his familiarity of the area in question, that he’s been observing the wetlands there for years, that it’s very productive for frogs, turtles and the like. Were they asking for a single family, he thinks no one would have a problem. But putting a development of that density, at that location, with the increased vehicle traffic, strongly concerns him.
Attorney Norris replies that he’s sure the environmental laws will be complied with. The density of the project will be a Planning Board issue. And that what happens on the back of the property is not germane to the special exception.
Roger Swain states he believes that the area is very productive now.
John explains that this group has tried to work with us and have tried to work within the ordinance.
Craig Pettigrew; “You’ve excluded part 2, will there be any changes in the wetland zone?”
Attorney Norris “We’ll deal with that when that tine comes.”
Dan Dineen; “I still question what the impact will be.”
Attorney Norris talks of the Planning Board.
Kevin O’Connell discusses with Attorney Norris the scope of the development, the wetlands in question, and how wetlands aren’t just hydric soils, but is a broad category encompassing everything form minimal wetlands, like created by a plugged culvert, to a sensitive bog such as this one.
Attorney Norris talks of usage of the property.
Kevin O’Connell asks Mr. Sisson of the soils composition.
Mr. Sisson replies that the wetland is poorly to very poorly drained soils.
Kevin asks of the upland soils.
Mr. Sisson replies excessively drained.
Attorney Norris reminds that Mr. Sisson is a certified wetlands engineer.
Mr. Swain replies he has a PHD in Zoology.
George Rainier states there are differing views of “productive use of land” and ask if the project is for 16 duplex houses.
Mr. Stewart replies, “Maybe.”
George Rainier replies “If it was a single dwelling it wouldn’t need a larger driveway.”
John states we do have some permitted uses of property in the wetlands buffer and reads aloud the permitted uses from the ordinance.
John asks if anyone has any more they’d like to say, and receives no reply.
Craig Pettigrew motions to close the pubic session, and is seconded by Roger Phelps. The motion carries unanimously. At 8:45 pm.
John calls for a 15-minute recess.
John reconvenes at 9:00 pm.
Craig comment that the buffers overlap by a good amount, and we don’t know what the impact would be on the wetlands.
Dan states he’s stuck on the minimum impact question. We can’t determine the minimum impact.
Kevin discusses this wetland’s quality, sensitivity, and importance.
Dan; “Going by the ordinance, I don’t believe there was enough evidence to show minimum impact to the wetlands.”
Kevin:” I agree with Dan.”
John;” I think we have to look at the purpose of the ordinance. We need 25 foot on both sides and the uplands have already been damaged. Not only can the land be use for other purposes, it has been used for other purposes.
Craig makes a motion to deny the special exception, seconded by Dan.
Vote taken to deny and passed unanimously.
Board reads minutes of the April 25 hearing. Motion made to accept minutes as read, seconded and passed.
| 
