ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the October 7, 2004 meetings
Members present:
Bob Edwards Spencer Garrett Mike Oldershaw
Ed Rowehl Dan Valley
Members absent:
Fred Anderson Bob Bethel Scott Burnside
Public attendees:
David Weymouth Helen Weymouth Ron Haggett
Bill Prokop Michael Rondeau Andrew Robblee
Donna Hanson Peter Mellen, LLS Randall Bragdon
Chairman Rowehl opened the meeting at 7:05 PM by introducing the board members and designating Mr. Edwards to sit for Mr. Bethel. He indicated that the public hearing which had been continued to this evening for Mr. Harriman’s excavation site had been cancelled and continued until November 4, 2004 because the information required by the board was not available. The next order of business was to continue the conceptual consultation of Mr. Donald Knapton for a six-lot subdivision to be accessed over an existing 25’ wide easement on an adjacent subdivision that had been created by Mr. Knapton.
Mr. Robblee whose property lies opposite the point where the easement exits onto Pierce Lake Road was concerned that the board was holding this hearing and would be making decisions without abutters having been notified. The secretary explained that this was not a public hearing on Mr. Knapton’s original application because Mr. Knapton had put that on hold. This meeting was a conceptual consultation regarding an alternate proposal by Mr. Knapton and public notice was not required. The secretary also stated that no decisions made during a conceptual consultation would be binding on either the board or Mr. Knapton. The next step would be for Mr. Knapton to continue with his original application or submit a new application for the subdivision.
Mr. Mellen, representing Mr. Knapton, presented a report prepared by Mr. Bragdon of Souhegan Valley Engineering, Inc. The planning board, at its September 16th meeting, had requested a report from a professional engineer specifying what changes could be made to the existing easement to have it conform to the subdivision regulations for a Class V road. A copy of the report is in file #2004-14PB. The board recessed briefly to give time for the members to review the report after which Mr. Bragdon was asked to give a brief synopsis.
Mr. Bragdon said that the easement had not been graded frequently but that it appeared to be stable, i.e. the current condition of the drive would indicate that it has a stable base. He noted that the drive is 14’ wide at the junction with Pierce Lake Road. Since it already is narrow, they would not be able to get an 18’ traveled way width with 4’ shoulders. Therefore their approach was to determine what compromises could be made to come as close as possible to meeting the subdivision regulations for a road accessing a subdivision. He reviewed the letter, which indicated changes that could be made such as removing trees, installing guardrails, resurfacing, etc. These changes are itemized in the letter. However, it would still be necessary to request waivers to the following requirements of Section IX
of the Subdivision Regulations:
Paragraph G.3 50’ right of way
Paragraph H.2 50’ right of way
Paragraph H.3 18’ traveled way, 4’ shoulders and 3:1 slopes
Paragraph H.5 60’ of grade not to exceed 2% at intersections with other roads
Paragraph H.11 Culverts to be concrete or corrugated galvanized steel, 15”
minimum size
Paragraph J in its entirety (Sidewalks, driveways, etc.)
Mr. Rowehl commented that he was not comfortable with the wavier requests because of the extensive deviation from the specifications of a Class V road. The secretary asked if any determination was made by the engineer regarding the construction and substructure of the driveway other than the ascertains made by Mr. Knapton in paragraph 2 of the report. Mr. Bragdon said that no test pits had been done. Mr. Mellen said they would be willing to do so if requested to by the board. Mr. Rondeau commented on a letter dated 10/1/04 that he had submitted. He said that oil deliveries had to be rescheduled in the spring of 2004 because of the steep grade of the road. Usually in the spring it becomes very muddy. He also said that after successive snowfalls the banks begin to narrow the width of the passable way to the point where
only one vehicle can barely pass. He was concerned that if a vehicle got stuck in the drive, no emergency vehicles would be able to get by. He also expressed concern about shared driveway maintenance agreements, especially if some of the property owners are summer residents who feel no obligation to pay for plowing and grading. He stated that if the board were to grant permission to Mr. Knapton to access the four lots via the easement they should require that it be brought up to Class V specification. He added that contrary to assertions made, he had not been approached by Mr. Knapton or his representative regarding the use of the easement across his property to access the 4 lots in the new subdivision. He felt that Mr. Knapton’s proposal was solely based on the least expensive way to develop the proposed subdivision. In summary he stated that he was “dead set against” Mr. Knapton’s request.
Mr. Rowehl referred to RSA 674:41, paragraph III which states that sole access cannot be granted via a private easement or right of way unless it meets the criteria of subparagraph I (a)(b), or (c). Mr. Mellen argued that paragraph I (b)(2) would be satisfied. The secretary pointed out that town counsel disagreed with Mr. Mellen’s interpretation of the RSA because “access” and “frontage” are intrinsically linked.
The secretary referred to the variance granted by the zoning board to access lot 7A-66-8 in January 2000 and presented a map of the original subdivision. He felt that the zoning board members had no indication or inclination at that time that the easement would be used to serve an additional 4 lots. He felt it would be presumptuous for the planning board to expand on the variance beyond its original intent. He also expressed concern that permitting such an access to subdivision would set a precedent that could lead to difficulties since significant portions of land in Antrim have wetlands or are landlocked. He presented a map of a landlocked piece of land that could be accessed over an easement. Mr. Mellen objected to the presentation as a misrepresentation because Mr. Knapton’s subdivision had road frontage as
required by the ordinance. The secretary also asked the members to consider the basic reason for granting Mr. Knapton’s request and implied that the overriding consideration would be to grant Mr. Knapton financial relief from his original proposal for the subdivision.
Mr. Mellen said he would appreciate hearing from the board members as to whether they would be supportive of the changes proposed in the engineering report and grant the waivers requested. Responses were as follows:
Mr. Rowehl said he would not support the request. He was concerned that the private road as proposed would deny future residents the opportunity to ever have the road accepted by the town. Mr. Oldershaw said that based on his understanding of the original variance granted and upon the advice of attorney he would oppose the request. Mr. Valley stated that he could not support the request. Mr. Edwards prefaced his reply by stating that it was the boards desire to see if there were any means whereby Mr. Knapton’s request could be granted. That lead to the request for the engineers report; however, he felt that no compelling evidence was presented which would warrant the granting of the waivers. Mr. Garrett stated that he “was on the fence”; however if he was asked to take a position he would be opposed
to the request.
It was decided that Mr. Knapton’s original application would remain on hold pending his decision as to what approach he would want to take regarding the subdivision. It was agreed that public notice would be made and abutters would be notified whether or not Mr. Knapton continued with his original application or submitted a new one. Either way there would be fees charged of Mr. Knapton for these notices.
Mr. Edwards moved to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2004 meeting. Mr. Valley seconded the motion that passed. The secretary explained that no progress had been made regarding the inspection of existing excavation sites. This activity was being delayed pending the finalization of the documentation for the Harriman site.
The board reviewed the capital improvement plan requests from the library, which consisted solely of $50,000 each year for a period of four years for the expansion of the library facilities. The board felt that this was not adequate and that the plan should include their requirements for capital needs during that time period as well as reserves for the building expansion. The library trustees will be asked to review their requirements.
There was a brief discussion regarding the petition being filed in Superior Court regarding the planning board’s decision granting a site plan review to Jon Buschbaum to operate a sawmill on his property. The consensus was that any opinions held by the board members as to the implications of the petition would be without legal foundation and that we should wait and see what town counsel has to say.
Mr. Garrett moved to appoint Mr. Edwards as the delegate to represent the planning board on the Open Space Committee being formed by the selectmen. Mr. Valley seconded the motion, which passed.
The following documentation was presented to the members.
Development on Class VI roads: Advice from Town Counsel
Booklets: Law Lecture Series 3’s 1, 2 & 3
SWRPC Quarterly Dinner Meeting October 19, 2004
Shepardson: Code enforcement
Brissette: Work stoppage pending a wetland permit
Procedures to accept a town road
A discussion followed regarding the organization of planning board meetings. Most members felt that they did not have time to digest the information presented before having to appear before the public. They also felt that applicants should submit documentation such as engineering reports prior to the meeting. There was a consensus that the meetings should be kept under control and that although abutters should be permitted to speak, they should not be given free rein to interrupt, ramble on, address one another and the like. The secretary cited RSA 676:4 regarding the processing of applications which made it difficult to keep the 3rd Thursday free of public hearings. Mr. Oldershaw disagreed with the interpretation of the RSA and asked that it be researched further.
A proposed addition to the subdivision regulations for shared driveways was reviewed. Mr. Valley moved to present the following change to Section IX, paragraph F at a public hearing:
7. Shared driveways
A shared driveway shall serve no more than two lots.
The shared portion of the driveway shall be twenty (20) feet wide.
The shared portion of the driveway shall not extend more than fifty (50) feet from the intersection with the highway.
Easements protecting the right of way of property owners must be incorporated into the land deeds.
Mr. Edwards seconded the motion, which passed. Mr. Garret moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Valley seconded the motion, which passed. Mr. Rowel adjourned the meeting at 9:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board
| 
