ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the February 19, 2004 meeting
Members present:
Fred Anderson Bob Bethel Scott Burnside Ed Rowehl
Members absent:
Dan Valley Spencer Garrett Mike Oldershaw
Public attendees:
Katharine Koziell Roland Soucy Ms. Soucy
Paul Belliveau Leslie Belliveau Peter Mellen
David Essex
Chairman Rowehl opened the meeting at 7:00 PM. The first order of business was the application of Verna Davy for a lot merger which had been carried over from the February 5, 2004 meeting. The secretary had contacted Ms. Davy requesting documentation that she had authorization to sign for her husband, Joseph Davy. No such documentation was received; hence the lot merger could not be granted. The secretary will make another effort to obtain this information.
Mr. Rowehl called on Ms. Koziell to present her application for a lot merger. She explained that when Contoocook Valley Drive was built a small sliver of land was deeded to lot 190, map 1C and it was their desire to combine it with the main lot. The Board reviewed a plat of the property showing the two lots to be merged. Mr. Burnside moved that the application to merge the lots be accepted. Mr. Bethel seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Bethel – aye, Mr. Burnside – aye, Mr. Anderson – aye, Mr. Rowehl – aye. Mr. Anderson moved to approve the application. Mr. Burnside seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Bethel – aye, Mr. Burnside – aye, Mr. Anderson – aye, Mr. Rowehl – aye.
Mr. Rowehl called on Mr. Soucy who had asked for a conceptual consultation regarding the development of Map 1C Lot10. Mr. Soucy wanted to know if a development similar to that proposed by Mr. Cloutier and approved by the Planning Board in early 1990’s would still be feasible. There was some discussion regarding the extension of the sewer lines and the fact that there was a lot of ledge on the property. The consensus was that if an application were made for such a development it would be necessary to delineate all the wetlands. The final consensus was that such a development would be feasible providing all zoning ordinances were adhered to and the requirements for a site plan review for a major subdivision were met. Mr. Soucy was advised that nothing said during the meeting by any party would be binding
Mr. Rowehl then called on Mr. Belliveau to present his concept for the renovation of the Antrim Mills building on Main Street and adjacent to Frameworks which was the former Chicago Cutlery building. Mr. Belliveau explained that he proposed to create modules of approximately 600 square feet each for residential and/or commercial units. He would use the “open space” concept meaning that the basic utilities would be provided in the modules but the actual internal configuration and completion of the interior would be done by the purchaser or renter. Mrs. Belliveau explained that they had used this concept in renovating a building in the Boston area and it was very successful. Purchasers would be able to buy/lease one, two or three modules depending on their needs. Portions of the building would be renovated
for professional offices and retail operations. A large portion of the grounds would be landscaped with an entry way from Main Street. Mr. Belliveau felt that there would be a total of 39 modules. He said that the parking requirements could be met. Mr. David Essex pointed out that the ordinance that allowed only six dwelling units to be constructed in a single structure. The consensus was that an application would have to be filed with the Zoning Board for a variance to this ordinance. Mr. Belliveau also pointed out that they would like to make a lot line adjustment so that the historical mill building would be on the same parcel of land. There was some concern that the sideline set backs could not be met but that if this was the case, an application could be made to the Zoning Board for a variance. Mr. Essex also wondered if there might be a problem with the location of a loading dock in relation to the intersection. Members felt that this could be dealt with during the site
plan review. Mr. Belliveau was advised that the next step would be to apply to the Zoning Board for the necessary variances after which he could file with the Planning Board for a site plan review. Mr. Belliveau was advised that nothing said during the meeting by any party would be binding
The next order of business was a presentation by Mr. Mellen regarding a concept for a proposed development by Mr. Donald Knapton. Mr. Mellen presented a plan showing a six-lot subdivision. Four of the lots would front on Pierce Lake Road as well as on Lake Pierce. The remaining two lots would front on Pierce Lake Road. Mr. Mellen proposed to access four of the lots by extending a twenty five foot wide driveway on an adjacent lot. Mr. Rowehl pointed out that this could not be permitted according to RSA 674:41, Paragraph IV. Any such easement would have to meet the requirements of a Class V or Class VI road as specified in RSA 674:41. Mr. Mellen then asked if a fifty-foot wide easement could be brought in from Pierce Lake Road on one of the lots to provide access to the four lots in question. He was advised that this
would be acceptable providing such an easement was in compliance with RSA 674:41. Mr. Mellen also pointed out that because of the features of the land and current property lines, one lot could not meet the 200 feet shoreline requirement even though the lot was 200 foot wide except at the shoreline, which is required by the ordinance. Mr. Mellen was advised that the correct course of action would be to apply to the Zoning Board for a variance. Mr. Mellen was advised that nothing said during the meeting by any party would be binding.
Mr. Mellen then pointed out that there appeared to be a discrepancy regarding the districts in which cluster housing was permitted. He pointed to Article XIV, paragraph O.3.a that essentially states that cluster housing is permitted in the Rural District. This appears to be in conflict with Article IV which does not list cluster housing as a permitted use or a use permitted by special exception. Mr. Mellen questioned which article prevailed. It was decided that the secretary should contact town counsel for an opinion.
The Board then moved to the business portion of their meeting. Mr. Bethel made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 5, 2004 meeting as corrected which was seconded by Mr. Anderson and passed. The secretary advised members that for an ordinance adopted by the Board to be effective, public hearings must have been held within 120 days of voting on the ballot items. The secretary explained that all the ordinances adopted by the Board in the past year would not be placed on the ballot in March 2004. This was because of concern that the large number of ordinance changes (fourteen in all) would take too long to read and possibly detract from time spent on other ballot items such as the formula for school funding. Consequently, the seven items, which will be placed on the March 2004 ballot, are listed
below.
1. Amend Article III to redefine “Conversion Apartments” so as not to conflict with the definition of “Duplexes” and to require owner residency in one of the dwelling units.
2. Amend Article XIII Special Exceptions to require that changes to create conversion apartments be in keeping with the existing architectural style of the building, permit conversion apartments in dwellings regardless of the date the building was constructed and to no longer permit the construction of conversion apartments in attached accessory structures.
3. Amend Article XIV Supplemental Regulations to establish specifications for the construction of duplex dwellings.
4. Amend Article III to add a definition for “Accessory Living Unit” (Mother-in-law apartments)
5. Amend Article XIII Special Exceptions to establish the requirements for the construction and usage of Accessory Living Units (mother-in-law apartments).
6. Amend Article VIII Lakefront Residential District to permit Accessory Living Units (mother-in-law apartments) as a special exception use.
7. Amend Article IX Rural Conservation District to permit Accessory Living Units (mother-in-law apartments) as a special exception use.
The remaining seven items which will be placed on the March 2005 ballot follow:
1. Amend Article VII Rural District to permit Condominiums and Cluster Housing as a permitted use by special exception.
2. Amend Article VII Rural District to delete multifamily dwellings (apartment houses) as a permitted use by special exception.
3. Amend Article IX Rural Conservation District to delete Duplex dwellings as a permitted use and multifamily dwellings (apartment houses) as a use permitted by special exception.
4. Amend Article VIII Lakefront Residential District to delete Duplex dwellings as a permitted use but allow them as a permitted use by special exception.
5. Amend Article VIII Lakefront Residential District to establish a minimum lot size of 130,000 square feet and frontage of 300 feet of road frontage for a duplex dwelling as no requirements currently exist.
6. Amend Article XIV to permit multifamily dwellings (apartment houses) only on property served by municipal water and sewer systems.
7. Amend Article XXI to change the time for filing an appeal to the Zoning Board from a “reasonable time” to “thirty” days.
The secretary advised the members that work was progressing on preparing a form for permitting the operation of excavation sites and the development of a new set of regulations. As soon as the necessary forms are developed, all excavation site operators and owners will be notified that their operation will have to be brought into compliance with RSA 155:E.
Members were advised that booklets were on file with the secretary for their use. One was Back to Basics for Planning Boards and ZBA’s from thew 2003 Law Lecture Series. The other was entitled Nonpoint Source Pollution from the NH Department of Environmental Services. Members were also reminded about the Spring Planning and Zoning Conference scheduled for May 8, 2004. Mr. Rowehl reminded the members that he would be taking his annual trip out west and would not be at the March 18, 2004 meeting.
Mr. Bethel moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion, which was passed. Mr. Rowehl adjourned the meeting at 9:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board
| 
