Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
September 2, 2008
The Zoning Board starts to gathers after 7:30 p.m. with John, Roger, Loren, Craig, and Kevin in attendance.
John describes the proceedings to date, that the board held a site walk on last Saturday, August 30. John states he was present along with Roger, Kevin, Loren, Nate Chamberlain from Meridian, and Carol Irvin from the Con-Com.
John states that the board asked questions of Nate, but no decisions or voting took place.
John asks the board how they would like to proceed tonight, we could continue last weeks hearing separately and come to a decision on the fire pond, or we could go on with the hearing with the pond and road special exceptions together as requested in the original application. The board decides to reopen the public portion of the to hear both requests as applied for.
John asks Nate Chamberlain to continue with his presentation for the road special exception.
Nate recaps with a description of the proposed subdivision’s open space, topography, elevation changes, and wetlands.
Nate states the road is a 4600-foot loop, and that they found an additional 310 square feet of buffer incursion, along with the original 1140 feet on the application, bringing the total to 1450 square feet.
Nate also stated the buffer will still serve its purpose as a buffer as it’ll be loamed and seeded.
Nate also states as to the fire pond, they’ll be enhancing the wetlands, not diminishing them, and that the original plans submitted to the Planning Board show the wetlands buffer impact. Nate continues that the homeowners association will maintain the road, and the Fire Dept will maintain the pond.
Nate also talks of the runoff, and states they’ll be no increase of peak runoff. And that they’re awaiting DES approval.
Craig asks if the DES decision could effect the ZBA’s decision.
Nate states “No. It’s just minor tweaks and adjustments, the town consultant went over our drainage calculations, and is OK with them.”
John states the impacts are now 7440 sq/ft for the fire pond and 1450 sq/ft for the road.
Nate states last time he said that the lots were 1.25 acres, but most are over that, some are a bit smaller.
Craig asks what zone it is.
Board replies “residential.”
Nate states the soils are “Monadnock.”
John asks Carol Irvin from the Con-Com what they feel.
Carol replies they stated their concerns at the last meeting and feel that changes will affect the ecology of the wetlands. “It’d be nice to see a study as to why they feel it wont change anything.”
John asks if she has any other comment.
Carol replies that she can’t see why the road has to go into the buffer.
Craig asks Nate if they can move the road enough to miss the buffer.
Nate replies that that’ll increase the road’s grade and require cuts and fills further up the road, ”It’ll be a snowball effect. “
Peter Hopkins asks if the buffer will be disturbed only during the construction phase, or permanently.
Nate replies “permanently.”
Peter states he feels that a fire pond with that volume of water on that end of town would be good. But he has problems with it. The biggest problem is how it affects the Landmark decision.
John affirms that the town’s consultant on this project; Keech, hasn’t seen the plans for the fire pond, and that the pond is fed by water coming off the hill through the retention basins.
John asks if any else has any questions.
Motion by Roger to close public portion of the hearing, seconded by Craig. The Board looks at the plat. John reads the ordinance aloud.
The board discusses the ordinance and what productive use of the land so zoned means.
John asks of Planning Board comment. Kevin replies the board remembers discussing the buffer and suggests granting the special exception.
John talks of the possibility of using another area for the road and pond.
Loren states the upper wetland wasn’t a wetland before a skidder created it.
The Landmark case wasn’t for a road in the buffer; the road was in the wetlands.
Roger states he does like the idea of fire protection being there.
John asks if the board would like to talk of the fire pond.
Kevin discusses the inflow impact to the wetlands on the 1140’ upper section.
John states if the Planning board moved the road, it wouldn’t need the exception.
Roger states we treat them all equally.
John states this is not a small incursion, it’s not even twenty feet, it’s thirty, and it’s the whole buffer.
Loren states he feels the road has been pushed as far as it can be.
Craig looks at the plat, states they’ve done a lot to make it minimal. John replies that by doing an open space they’ve created their own situation. They’re talking about using the whole buffer.
Roger questions the Planning board minutes; he states nothing shows they discussed the wetlands. The Planning Board decision bothers him with the wetlands.
John states the Road buffer looks small in relation to the entire project, but it is the entire buffer.
Roger makes a motion to deny the special exception for the road. Motion seconded by Kevin. Motion fails two yes to three no.
Motion made by Craig to grant special exception for the road, seconded by Loren.
Motion carries three yes to two no.
Discussion moves to fire pond.
Kevin states he has concerns with what the water flow will be like from the drainage lines and what the maximum flow into the fire pond will be. How will it effect the wetlands/fire pond and what the wetlands across the road, and whether it’ll increase the chances of flooding due to the flow off the hill changing from slow sheet flow through a woodlands, to a more concentrated drainage flow, possibly overflowing the basin. The town’s consultant didn’t look at the fire pond. He feels the subject needs to be looked at further.
Craig motions to deny the special exception, motion is seconded by Roger.
Motion carries unanimously.
The board discusses the written decision and decides on the following,
The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed use wouldn’t conflict with the purpose and intentions of the town’s zoning ordinance, what the development’s effect would be on the proposed fire pond, and what the effects of failure or overflow of the sedimentation ponds from severe weather events would be like downstream.
The board also found that the successful creation of the fire pond was not assured and could have resulted in both fire pond failure to retain water and the destruction of the affected wetlands, and that the maintenance of the pond was not sufficiently defined.
The board reads the minutes from August 18; Roger motions to accept the minutes as read, with noted typographical errors corrected. Motion carries
Roger motions to ends meeting at 10:20, motion carries.
| 
