Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
August 22, 2006
The Board convenes at 8:00 pm for case 06-5. Landmark Planning & Development, LLC of Peterborough, NH, for properties located at 13 Gulf Road; R9-66-1, and 124 Russell Station Road; R9-65 for an Appeal from Administrative decision; Planning Board case # PB-SUB-06-12-06
Sitting on the board is John Gryval, Dan Dineen, Roger Phelps, Dale Sanford, and Kevin O’Connell.
John states he’s not quite sure why we’re here, the Planning Board didn’t reject a plan for subdivision, it wouldn’t accept an application as complete.
John states he recalls the case, as he was at the meeting in question.
At this point Mr. Stewart places a tape recorder on the table and states they’re recording the meeting.
John says, OK, but we’d like a copy of the tape.
Attorney Jennifer Parent: representing the case states she doesn’t agree, that they should be here as the planning board refused the application upon reasons that were substantive.
John Gryval replies that the planning boards minutes explain the rejection of the application as complete, as does the letter to the applicant. John goes on to read the letter.
John asks Dario Carrara, the Planning Board Chairman, to state the intent of the letter.
Dario states the letter was to explain that the application was not complete and the board couldn’t invoke jurisdiction. Dario also stated that the board felt there were serious problems with the application, some of which were pointed out in the Preliminary Conceptual Consultation, and they weren’t addressed.
John talks of RSA 676:4, and how it’s up to the planning board to come up with the requirements for what constitutes a completed application.
Attorney Parent argues that when the planning board refused acceptance because of an erroneous interpretation of the open space ordinance.
Kevin states that in the subdivision regulations, one of the requirements is that the plan must meet and state that the plan meets the zoning ordinance.
John talks of the lack of access from Russell Station Road, and asks Attorney Norris what they’re here for.
Attorney Norris replies that the letter in the application states we’re here to appeal the denial of the plan, but that the letter didn’t reflect the checklist or the finding that the application was incomplete.
John asks Dario if he has anymore to add.
Dario states that the letter was to reflect the minutes of the meeting, the official record, and that if he failed to grammatically, he’s sorry for that.
Attorney Norris asks; “If the decision of the planning board was from a planning board interpretation of the ordinance, where do we go?”
Roger talks of the planning board minutes, and how that was clear that night.
Dan states he agrees.
Attorney Norris states all five reasons for denial were substantive to the zoning ordinance. Substance of the plan was discussed at the meeting. The board’s discussion centered on the acceptance of the plan. The letter we had to act upon was the one sent in the mail. Any way you cut it, we shall have to talk to the Zoning board. The applicant needs clarification of the ordinance. We need to deal with the hard issue of the ordinance.
John replies, “I’d totally agree, if you had been denied without recourse, I think you need to be before the Planning Board.
Attorney Norris;” We were, they denied us”
Dan states to Attorney Norris: “You were pretty clear what the meeting was about, the acceptance of the application.”
Attorney Norris; “Yes, the meeting was about the acceptance of the application, but where do we go from here?”
Dan asks Dario what their options before the Planning Board are.
Dario replies they could come for a Design Review, or another PCC and talk of density and access requirements.
John asks if we have a motion to proceed with the hearing or refuse the hearing.
Roger motion to deny appeal for hearing.
Attorney: Norris asks if he can submit documentation for the application to show that they were here.
Board replies no, but documentation is left anyway.
Board votes on Roger’s motion to deny hearing, motion carries 4-0, with one abstention by Kevin.
John waives fee invoice to applicant for hearing as no hearing was held.
Board votes to seal, without viewing, the information left by the applicant, and include it in the file.
The board discussed the letter to be sent to the applicant, voted on, and accepted the following,
Based on the official record of the Planning Board meeting of July 7, 2006, page 2 of 2, “Alternate Pennoyer made a motion to deny acceptance of the application for a proposed development on Russell Station Road and Gulf Road submitted by the Turner Group and Landmark Development… The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The application was not accepted.”
Based on the aforementioned, the Zoning Board decided not to hear the case.
Board reads minutes of July 11,2006 meeting.
Motion to accept as read, motion carries.
Board motion to adjourn at 9:17 pm, motion carries.
| 
