ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the September 16, 2004 meetings
Planning Board members present:
Fred Anderson Bob Bethel Scott Burnside
Bob Edwards Spencer Garrett Mike Oldershaw
Ed Rowehl Dan Valley
Public attendees:
Peter Mellen, LLS Donald Knapton Jeanne Knapton
Geraldine Rabideau Renee Rabideau Paul Young
Bill Prokop
Chairman Rowehl then opened the planning board meeting at 7:20 PM by announcing the continuation of the public hearing on the application of Mr. Knapton for a major subdivision off of Pierce Lake Road. Mr. Mellen presented drawings that showed a proposal for a six lot subdivision with two lots being accessed on Pierce Lake Road and four lots which had lake frontage being accessed over a 25’ private driveway easement in an abutting subdivision previously developed by Mr. Knapton. Mr. Oldershaw interrupted Mr. Mellen’s presentation to have the record reflect that Mr. Knapton was recording the proceedings. Mr. Mellen acknowledged that for safety considerations it would be desirable for the access to have a 50’ right of way; however he felt that the concept presented actually improves the safety
conditions by lessening the curb cuts on Pierce Lake Road. The owner of lot 7A-66-8 currently has to maintain 800’ of driveway. If the proposed access is approved it would add 600’ to the right of way to be maintained for a total of 1450’; however, maintenance would now be shared by seven lot owners, each being responsible for approximately 200’. Mr. Mellen said that it might be possible to negotiate a 50’right of way with the owner of lot 66-8; however, such an arrangement could not be made with the owner of lots 66-6 & 66-7. Mr. Mellen added that Mr. Knapton would also stipulate that no further subdivision of any of the lots would be permitted, especially the 12 acre lot on the lake which would be the last lot on the access road. He also would stipulate that that the access could never be put up for adoption as a town road. Mr. Mellen pointed out that the proposed access route would be favorable to that originally proposed, as it would reduce the
potential runoff of water and sediment across Wheeler’s Cove Road. He added that DES had expressed concerns regarding the roadway originally proposed. A copy of the DES letter dated September 8, 2004 is in file #2004-14PB. Mr. Mellen indicated that in hindsight, good planning probably should have required a 50’ right of way in the original subdivision; however, at that time, Mr. Knapton did not own the adjacent property and there was no reason to consider the need to extend the right of way. Mr. Mellen indicated that Mr. Knapton would construct the easement in the new subdivision with a 50’ right of way and to Class V specifications as well as upgrade the easement granted in the previous subdivision to Class V specifications but within the existing width.
Mr. Rowehl framed what he felt was the basic issue; namely, did the board feel that the earlier easement granted to serve three lots should be extended to serve seven lots. He pointed out that although the four lots to be served by the easement had the road frontage required by the ordinance, the point was insignificant, as the frontage could not be used because of the necessity to cross wetlands. He also felt that any roadway approved by the board should be such that it would be acceptable for town approval in the future. Mr. Oldershaw felt that the board should consider the possibility of utilizing the existing easement on the previous subdivision to access the new development. One consideration would be to provide a cul-de-sac at the end of the easement. Mr. Rowehl questioned whether or not a 25’ road could
handle fire trucks and emergency vehicles. Mr. Oldershaw did not see any problems as such vehicles as well as school buses were currently operating on 18’ wide roads throughout the town. Mr. Burnside felt that a professional engineer should review the proposal and give an opinion regarding the suitability of the road for emergency vehicles. Mr. Mellen pointed out that the road standards call for an 18’ right of way and that the easement has been in place for the past five years. Mr. Rowehl was concerned that any decision made by the board would be establishing precedence. Mr. Edwards felt that the board should have additional information on the entire access. Mr. Garrett said that regardless of the width, the bottom line is that the access is a road and hence, all portions of it should be built to Class V specifications.
At this point Mr. Knapton presented the board with a proposed wavier to the requirements for a Class V road, then stated he was not formally submitting the request. No copy was made available to the secretary for the file. He did go on to state that he is willing to do whatever he can to bring the existing easement up to specifications. Mr. Valley felt the board should review a design plan to upgrade the existing easement to Class V specifications and Mr. Garrett concurred with Mr. Valley. Mr. Mellen said that no plans for the easement as it currently is constructed exist. Mr. Knapton felt the board should use an engineering firm selected by the town rather than his hiring an engineering firm whose report might be rejected by the town. Mr. Mellen proposed a conceptual design rather than a complete engineering design
that the easement could be upgraded to meet Class V specifications. Mr. Knapton asked if the engineering report was positive, could he assume that the board would approve the easement into the new subdivision. The consensus of the board was that if the engineering report on the original easement were favorable, the board would then consider the engineering aspects of the easement into the new subdivision.
Mr. Burnside summarized the discussion and the consensus of the board was that a conceptual design would be adequate and the engineer should list any waivers they might require. Mr. Mellen asked if the board would render a decision on a second proposal. The board felt it should not be considered at this time and that the first proposal should reach a final decision before an alternate is considered. Mr. Rowehl then continued the public hearing until October 7, 2004.
Mr. Anderson moved to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2004 meeting as corrected. Mr. Garrett seconded the motion, which passed. Mr. Oldershaw moved to approve the minutes of the September 2, 2004 meeting as corrected. Mr. Garrett seconded the motion, which passed.
The secretary reported that no inspections of excavation sites had been done and they would not be initiated until the resolution of the Harriman site that would be used as the model for regulating excavation sites. The members discussed the need to amend the earth excavation regulations of 1992 to limit excavations to within four feet of the high water table. The secretary will prepare such an amendment for review at the October 21st work session.
The secretary reported that he would meet with Mr. Haggett during the week of September 20th to finalize the capital improvement plan for the library. He also reported that as yet he had not received any response from the Parks and Recreation department regarding their capital improvement needs.
Correspondence was presented regarding a Conservation Commission meeting on September 22nd with the Wetland Bureau, a Planning & Zoning Conference scheduled for October 30th, status of a Minimum Impact Application for Meadowlands Timberlands Ltd., and code violation notices for Wynott & Inloes.
Members then discussed possible changes to the subdivision regulations for driveways. Of particular concern was to establish a definition for shared driveways. The consensus of the board was that the definition should establish the width at the access point (14’), the distance from the access point at which the split must occur (50” with the provision for a waiver) and the number of lots that could be serviced off a shared driveway (2). The secretary will draft such a regulation for review at the October 21st work session.
Mr. Bethel felt that the board should revisit the requirements and procedure for the acceptance of roads by the town. No one was quite sure as to just what the legal procedure was for an existing private road to become a town road. The secretary will research the matter.
Mr. Rowehl then brought up the subject of the formation of a committee to study the matter of managing growth in the town. He indicated that Mr. Edwards was willing to act as the point man for the planning board in such a venture. Mr. Edwards said that he had the names of some persons who might be willing to serve on such a committee but he could use more. His opinion was the that committee should first outline a scope of it’s objectives before proceeding to work on specific ordinances. He will report on the status of forming such a committee at the next meeting.
Members then discussed the matter of storage trailers and busses in terms of whether they should be permitted in town. Opinions ran from no restrictions to banning them completely. Concerns were expressed about existing units and should they be removed. One consideration was to allow them but shield them from sight by neighbors or the public. The secretary said that SWRPC indicated that they were not aware of any towns that had regulations regarding the use of such equipment as storage. The secretary was instructed to research the matter further and develop a draft of a proposed ordinance by the October 21st work session.
Mr. Oldershaw mentioned the need to terminate the planning board meetings no later than 9:00 PM. The secretary noted that it would be more feasible to do this if the board members were more decisive in their review of applications instead of excessive continuation of public hearings, which only resulted in a backlog. He also noted that the proposed experiment reserving the first Thursday of the month for public hearings and the second Thursday for work session should help alleviate the problem of late meetings.
Mr. Garrett moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion, which passed. Mr. Rowehl adjourned the meeting at 9:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board
| 
