ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the September 2, 2004 meeting
Members present:
Fred Anderson Bob Edwards Spencer Garrett
Mike Oldershaw Ed Rowehl
Members absent:
Bob Bethel Scott Burnside Dan Valley
Public attendees:
Thomas Benedict, LLS Peter Mellen, LLS John Doughty, LLS Bill Prokop Donald Knapton Ron Haggett
Jon C. Buschbaum Nancy Baxter Charles Zimmerman
Terry Schnare, Mighty Oaks Realty, LLC Mr. Holmes
Steve Reddy, Zetland Homes, LLC Bob Ward
Attorney Mark Fernald
Chairman Rowehl opened the meeting at 7:00 PM by introducing the board members and designating Mr. Edwards to sit for Mr. Valley. The first order of business was the continuation of the public hearing on the application of Charles Zimmerman to reopen an existing excavation site. Mr. Zimmerman was advised that the Town of Hancock had been notified that he had applied to Antrim for a permit to operate an excavation site because the site did extend into Hancock. During the meeting of August 5, 2004, the board felt that the information supplied by Mr. Zimmerman was not complete and he had been asked to supply the additional information this evening. He supplied a color-coded plat of the property showing the various areas of excavation, buffers, stockpiles, etc. He did not provide a contour drawing of the new driveway to
be cut into the area that had been requested. Mr. Zimmerman requested a waiver to item #10 on the checklist that calls for test pits. He argued that there was no reasonable way to determine the high water table because of extensive excavation in the past and the encroachment of new vegetation and he felt that the test pits would serve no useful purpose. Mr. Edwards asked if there was any reason he couldn’t provide test pits. Mr. Zimmerman cited the factor of cost. Mr. Oldershaw felt that test pits are required and the requirement shouldn’t be waived. The secretary pointed out that test pits were being required of other applicants before the board and to grant a waiver to Mr. Zimmerman would be establishing a precedent.
Following some additional discussion, it was the consensus of the board that the waiver should not be granted. Mr. Oldershaw noted that no wells were shown on the site. Mr. Zimmerman said that there were none within 150’ of the excavation site. The board also felt that the plan presented did not constitute a reclamation plan as required by RSA 155:E and such a plan would be required before any approval could be given. Mr. Ward, an abutter questioned the location of the proposed driveway as a portion of it was shown to require substantial excavation within the 50 foot buffer zone. Mr. Zimmerman felt that this did not constitute “excavation” but merely the creation of a driveway. He added that the road agents for both Hancock and Antrim had approved the location. The members felt that the amount of
material to be removed was significant enough to be considered “excavating” and requested that Mr. Zimmerman relocate the entrance point of the new driveway. Mr. Zimmerman said he could do so. Mr. Edwards asked if the areas colored pink on the drawing and the driveway were the only areas to be excavated. Mr. Zimmerman said that was so.
The hearing was continued until September 16, 2004 to give Mr. Zimmerman time to provide the material requested. In the meantime, the secretary will review Mr. Zimmerman’s documentation with Mary Pinkham-Langer of NHDRA during their September 10, 2004 meeting concerning the Harriman excavation site application to see if any other information is required.
The next order of business was the continuation of the public hearing on the application of Mr. Buschbaum to operate a sawmill. The board examined reports from SWRPC based upon a site walk and a review of the major site plan checklist. These reports are in file #2004-11PB. Mr. Oldershaw moved to waive item #21 on the checklist that called for the seal and signature of a licensed engineer. Mr. Garret seconded the motion that passed. Item #24 requiring building elevations and floor plans was waived. The consensus was that the necessity to obtain building permits would provide sufficient control over the building structure. Although no formal parking area was shown on the plat, it was understood that all parking would be contained in the area designated for the mill operation. Mr. Buschbaum indicated that there were no
plans for exterior light or signs at this time. He stated that rubbish removal would be by means of a dumpster and that the provider would determine the appropriate location on the lot. Mr. Rowehl then asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to add to previous comments made.
Mr. Holmes felt that noise was still a concern. Even though the decibel level was that of a lawn mower, he felt that what should be considered was that level of noise over an extended period of time. Attorney Fernald, representing a number of abutters and concerned citizens, submitted a letter dated September 2, 2004 (copy in file 2004-11PB) expressing a number of concerns regarding the application and requesting that the board reject Mr. Buschbaum’s request. The board discussed Atty. Fernald concerns and the consensus was that they did not justify the rejection of Mr. Buschbaum’s application. Mr. Oldershaw moved to accept the application of Mr. Buschbaum. Mr. Garrett seconded the motion. Roll call vote. Anderson – aye, Edwards – nay, Garrett – aye, Oldershaw aye. At this point Mr.
Fernald asked to submit a list of conditions (copy in file #2004-11PB) to be applied to the approval on behalf of the abutters and concerned citizens. The board took the suggestions into consideration in determining what conditions should be made part of any subsequent approval.
Mr. Oldershaw moved to approve the application of Jon C. Buschbaum, File # 2004-11PB for a Major Site Plan Review for property located on the south side of Route 9, Antrim, NH, Tax Map 8D Lot 3 located in the Highway Business District. The applicant proposes to manufacture forest products such as logs, pulp and firewood.
The following conditions apply to this approval:
Planning Board requirements, commitments and agreements made by the applicant and/or his agent as recorded in the meeting minutes dated September 2, 2004 and prior meetings as they pertain to this application are a conditional part of this approval.
The applicant is to obtain a building permit for any construction or alterations and adhere to all building, health and fire codes.
Hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM and closed on Sundays.
Truck deliveries to and from the facility shall be limited to within the hours of operation except for occasional deliveries outside of these hours in emergency or unique circumstances.
The applicant shall supply the planning board with a copy of the registration of the portable mill with the State.
Approval is given for the operation of one band saw. Additional wood processing equipment, including saws, will require planning board approval.
A 50-foot set back from the property lines shall remain uncut so as to provide a noise barrier with the exception of providing a clear line of sight for the driveway.
The plat shall show the location of the electric service to the mill once laid out and installed by the electric company.
The applicant shall permit a review of the parking area once the site is cleared.
The plat shall show the location of waste removal devices once they are installed.
The approval permits a maximum of four employees. Any expansion of employees requires appearance before the planning board for approval.
Approval from the Fire Chief is required before the mill is put into operation.
Fuel on the site shall be kept in a contained area.
Mr. Garrett seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anderson – aye, Edwards – nay, Garrett – aye, Oldershaw – aye.
Mr. Rowehl continued the public hearing of August 19, 2004 and called on Mr. Benedict to present the application for Mr. Clark for a lot line adjustment of properties Map 5, lots 111 and 112. Mr. Benedict presented a plot showing a 0.977-acre portion of lot 112 to become a part of lot 111 and a 0.544-acre portion of lot 111 to become a portion of lot 112. The members reviewed the drawing. No abutters spoke in favor or against the application. Mr. Anderson moved to accept the application of Mr. Clark for a lot line adjustment. Mr. Edwards seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anderson – aye, Edwards – aye, Oldershaw – aye, Garrett – aye. There was no further discussion so Mr. Garrett moved to approve the application of Mr. Clark for a lot line adjustment. Mr. Oldershaw seconded the motion. Roll
call vote: Anderson – aye, Edwards – aye, Oldershaw – aye, Garrett – aye.
Mr. Benedict then presented the application of Mr. Clark to subdivide lot 111 into two lots. He presented a plat that showed a shared driveway that entered on lot 111-1 and crossed into lot 111. He indicated that State septic approval for lot 111 had been applied for. Mr. Edwards asked for clarification of the location of the proposed septic area. Mr. Mellen questioned the width of the easement for the driveway. Mr. Benedict said it was 40’. He added that the State requires them to pave a 20’ apron to the drive. Mr. Benedict also confirmed Mr. Mellen’s question that the easement was held in fee simple. Mr. Oldershaw was concerned about the shared driveway concept and felt that legal opinion should be sought. The board concurred. Mr. Anderson moved to accept the application of Mr. Clark to subdivide
lot 111. Mr. Edwards seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anderson – aye, Edwards – aye, Oldershaw – abstains, Garrett – aye. Mr. Edwards moved to conditionally approve the application of Mr. Clark to subdivide lot 111. Conditions would be:
Final approval would be based on Town counsel decision regarding the legality of the shared driveway
The final Mylar shall show bounds and date set.
Final approval will require a State driveway permit
Mr. Garrett seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anderson – aye, Edwards – aye, Oldershaw – abstains, Garrett – aye.
Mr. Benedict then presented the application of Mr. Clark to subdivide lot 112 into two lots. He indicated that applications had been made to the State for septic approval of lot 112 and for a driveway permit. There would be a shared driveway entering on lot 112-1 which would in turn enter lot 112 at a point approximately 300’ from Route 31 (Clinton Road). The board expressed their previous concerns regarding the shared driveway concept. Mr. Garrett moved to accept the application of Mr. Clark to subdivide lot 112. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote. Anderson – aye, Edwards – aye, Oldershaw – abstains, Garrett – aye. The consensus of the board was that the subdivision appeared sound with the exception of the shared driveways. Mr. Edwards moved to conditionally approve the
application of Mr. Clark to subdivide lot 112. Conditions are:
Final approval would be based on Town counsel decision regarding the legality of the shared driveway
The final Mylar shall show bounds and date set.
Final approval will require a State driveway permit
Mr. Garrett seconded the motion. Roll call vote. Anderson – aye, Edwards – aye, Oldershaw – abstains, Garrett – aye.
Mr. Mellen, representing Mr. Knapton presented a revised conceptual drawing for Mr. Knapton’s subdivision on Pierce Lake Rd. It consisted of a total of 6 lots, four of which were on the lake. Mr. Knapton proposes to access the four lake lots off an easement that he has over three of the lots in his previous subdivision. He argued that the proposed subdivision met all the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the board could not deny him access across the 25 foot wide existing driveway easement. Furthermore he said that the planning board had an obligation to consider the financial benefit to the town. He claimed his new proposal of four lots on the lake, versus the alternative of one large lot would generate substantial tax revenue. Should he provide only one 12-acre lot he would grant that lot a
50-foot easement off of Pierce Lake Road. He pointed out that someone could come along at a later date that had financial resources and divide the 12 acres into at least five more lots. He said he would be willing to construct the new drive to Class V specs but could not widen the drive over the earlier easement.
A lively debate followed regarding whether or not a driveway serving seven lots was in fact a driveway or was it a road which would require its entire length to meet the 50’ Class V requirement. The secretary presented a written opinion from town counsel (copy in file #2004-14PB) which essentially states that Article VII, para. G of the subdivision regulations require all roads to be Class V. Mr. Knapton disagreed with town counsels opinion and was of a mind to seek his own legal counsel. A suggestion was made by Mr. Prokop, Town Administrator that town counsel be asked to visit the site and review the proposal made by Mr. Knapton prior to the continuation of Mr. Knaptons public hearing on September 16, 2004. The board directed the secretary to set up such a meeting and advise Mr. Mellen & Mr.
Knapton.
Mr. Rowehl then introduced Mr. Doughty, the surveyor for Mr. Schnare, who presented a conceptual consultation of a parcel of land off of Route 202. Mr. Doughty presented a drawing of proposed subdivision contained 22 residential lots. They proposed that twenty of the lots would be off of a town road. Two other lots would be off of a shared driveway. In addition to the residential area, they proposed to create a commercial area along Route 202 by initially converting the existing barn into office space. The drawing also showed the potential for expanding the commercial area along 202 in the direction of the State rest area. The plat showed extensive areas of wetlands surrounding the residential area. Mr. Doughty said that they were working on placing these areas into some form of a conservation easement as well as the
area under the PSNH power lines but as yet all wetlands had not been delineated. At this time he felt that they would have to apply to the State for three wetland crossings.
A general discussion followed regarding lot size and configuration, aspects of the terrain, lot coverage and similar considerations. Mr. Schnare indicated that they were planning to appear before the board with a formal application before the end of 2004. The members complimented Mr. Schnare on approaching the board and seeking their advice in advance and said they would look forward to the formal application.
Considering the lateness of the hour, the balance of he agenda was tabled until the September 16, 2004 meeting, including the approval of he August 19, 2004 minutes. In closing Mr. Oldershaw requested that the record reflect his concern that department heads do not always respond to requests by the planning board to render their opinions on subdivisions and site plan reviews.
Mr. Oldershaw moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Garrett seconded the motion that passed. Mr. Rowehl adjourned the meeting at 11:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board
| 
