Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
December 18, 2007
Board convenes at 7:30 with members Gryval, Phelps, Pettigrew, O’Connell, and alternates Sanford, and White present.
Board reads minutes of case 07-4 on November 20, 2007.
Board notes the following corrections.
Lines; 30 remove “in”, 41 remove “by”, 78 correct to “they’re”, 81 correct “there”, 95 “and “ to “an”. 87 “633” to “63”.
Craig motions to accept minutes as corrected, seconded by Loren, motion carries.
John opens case 07-6 at 8:05 pm and explains that the application has been submitted by Martin Smith of Bedford, NH, that it’s for a Special Exception as allowed under Section III.I.D.1 from Section III.I.E.3, 25 foot wetlands buffer, of the Zoning Ordinance of the town of Greenfield for property located on Forest, County, and Old Bennington Roads; lot R3-5
John asks if the applicant if they feel any member should be recuse from the case. They reply, no.
John asks the board members if anyone would like to be rescued. Kevin replies that he’d like to be rescued to allow Dale to sit in on the case.
John asks the applicant to present their case, and Chad Brannon from Meridian Land Service explains that he’ll be representing the applicant, Mr. Smith.
John asks if the hearing was properly posted, Kevin replies yes.
At this time John asks Chad Brannon to present his case.
Mr. Brannon explains the subdivision plans and that they’ve been before the Con-com and the Planning Board.
Mr. Brannon also shows the wetlands and explains how they moved the driveway from its original location to the current location to avoid the wetlands buffer and now only need the special exception to cross the wetlands. Mr. Brannon also states they have the DOT driveway permit and meet the four hundred foot line-of-sight requirement, and that the lot is 15.988 acres in an area the requires only two acres.
John recognizes a question from George Rainier asking if these lots are approved or proposed lots.
Chad Brannon replies the subdivision has conditional approval with the issues of a cistern easement, DES permit, lot numbering, and a zoning special exception being granted remaining.
John asks if there was any discussion by the planning board of what would happen if the exception were not granted.
Chad, “Not really, we think we met their requirements.”
Craig asks how the wetlands of the subdivision were defined.
Chad Brannon replies with the three criteria that a wetlands scientist uses to define wetlands.
Roger states we’re only concerned with the one lot brought before us.
John asks what was included in the total dry area calculated.
Chan Brannon replies the area not identified as wetlands.
John,” Was the buffer included?”
Chad.” Yes, but the lots are larger that what is required by the ordinance.”
John,” And the culvert was defined how?”
Chad,” By the hydrology of the area, we also used a conservative design.”
John,” and what’s the width at the wetlands crossing?”
Chad,” Twelve feet.”
Craig,” With a twenty-foot culvert, the grade doesn’t change much there. How does it drain?”
Chad,” It has a pretty well defined channel.”
John,” So the way you have it now, the only disturbance is at the crossing.”
Chad, ’Yes, where we submerged the culvert.”
One of the abutters talks of his concerns with water sheeting and flooding on the property.
Craig observes that all of the water uphill of the driveway will be channeled to the culvert.
Mr. Brannon explains the surface water flow and feels they won’t change the water flow characteristics.
One of the abutters asks if the town’s had an engineer look at this subdivision plan.
John explains that were only here to look at the effect on the wetlands on the proposed lot before the board, not the entire subdivision.
Chad talks of the wetlands and the large lots, the lots are oversized. And could have been designed more density.
An abutter expresses his concern that this will add more water flow; Chad replies it won’t add more water flow.
Craig states there’s a new culvert under Bennington Road, Chad replies the culvert will be taking about the same amount of water.
John asks if the driveway will be for a shared driveway.
Chad replies, no, it’s only for one, we didn’t go for with a shared.
Craig Morocco asks why the town should go over the state’s decision.
Chad, you wouldn’t, the state OK’d this crossing, we’re here to get a special exception for the wetlands buffer as per the zoning ordinance. We’re trying to show how we are minimizing the impact on the wetlands.
John; “You could go in from the other side and go with a larger lot.”
Chad;” We could, but the zoning ordinance allows this under the special exception.”
Kevin discusses what the Planning Board discussed in the review of the subdivision plans, the wetlands, water table, foundations, raised septic, drainage, etc. One abutter replies, that with a flood like two years ago, none of that’ll matter. The Planning board should have considered what effect the cutting of trees would have.
George Rainer states he feels it would be better as one lot.
Roger motions to close Public hearing, Dale seconds, and motion carries unanimously.
John calls for five-minute break.
Board returns, and John opens deliberative session.
Craig questions, “Because it was conditionally approved by the Planning Board, must we say yes, or can there be six lots instead of seven.”
John reads the ordinance, and asks,
Craig states what they’ve proposed is a five foot culvert. There’ll be plenty of flow, it won’t change the flow area.
John comments that we’ve gone on site walks before with wetlands flags wrong,
Craig states during the wet time of year, in April, the area is a big sponge.
Craig states they’ve done their homework. The state will approve it, and it is the least impact.
Roger replies, “It could be denser. “
John: “could ask for more house lots! if I were on the Planning Board would have asked for a second look at the wetlands.
Roger ponders, there’s no time limit we have to approved it, we could wait until is wet, we can’t tell anything right now.
John,” we could look under the snow.’
Chad offers the board photos of the site,
Craig motions to allow Chad to present the photos, seconded by Loren, Motion carries and Chad explains the photos to the board.
Roger notes the photos were taken in September.
Chad replies wetlands are wetlands at any time of year.
Craig replies it looks dry to him, at least in September, but in the spring… but a five-foot culvert will handle it. It’s the least impact, at the smallest area.
John states the ordinance focus is “naturally occurring Wetland” Putting a culvert in that area will affect. Coming in from County Road with a shared driveway would minimize impact.
Roger: “That’s not what’s before us.”
Craig, Roger and John discuss driveway options,
Dale:” This should have been done before, at the Planning Board hearing.”
Craig: “Maybe we should throw it back to the Planning board.”
Loren:” Our discussion is not to determine if this is a build-able lot.”
Loren discusses the 820-foot length of the driveway. Craig talks of sheeting water flow, but doesn’t feel the driveway will make it worse.
John;” If it’s all wet, the upland development inside the driveway will.”
Craig replies he doesn’t think it’ll change the volume of the flow.
Loren; ”If you elevate the driveway three feet, you’ll be creating a dike.”
Craig: ”The wetlands stream is picking up the flow now.”
Roger: ”I wish we could sent this back to the Planning Board.”
John states he feels from the abutter’s comments that at times the water is deeper than it shows here.
Craig replies water sitting for a period of time is wet but not wetlands.
Roger states the water flow has no bearing on this case.
John states he’s concerned with what the people here have stated about the excessive water and the lots.
Craig replies, “You’re not going to change the quantity of water, just its location.
John: ”I think it does if we’ve making the condition worse.”
Roger: “ I don’t think it will, but we’ve had no expert opinion tonight.”
Craig: “The culvert will be big enough.”
John: “The spirit of the ordinance is to reduce. But who says you have to cross it. The Planning board could have done something else.”
Roger: “But they didn’t, this is what’s before us.”
John: “ I still think we have to look at the spirit of the ordinance.”
Loren: “ We have to look beyond, we have to look at the whole special exception.”
Dale: ”At this point the Planning board has done their thing, we have to decide the special exception crossing. I don’t think it’ll make too much of an impact.”
John states he’s still concerned with the liability of the crossing.
Craig makes motion to grant a special exception from restrictions of the Wetland Conservation District of the Zoning Ordinance for a single dwelling unit driveway located on property lot R3-5-3.
Motion seconded by Roger,
Motion carries with Craig, Roger, Loren and Dale voting for and John voting against.
| 
