ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the December 16, 2004 meeting
Members present:
Fred Anderson Bob Edwards Spencer Garrett
Mike Oldershaw Renee Rabideau Ed Rowehl
Dan Valley
Members absent:
Bob Bethel Scott Burnside
Public attendees:
Jon Buschbaum Nancy Baker Peter Beblowski
Martha Martin Betty Avery Loranne Carey-Block
John Giffin Bill Prokop Ron Haggett
Shelly Nelkens Susan Foster Richard Block
Alexander Snow Carol Snow Lloyd Henderson
Ben Pratt
Chairman Rowehl opened the meeting at 7:00 PM by designating Mr. Edwards to sit for Mr. Bethel and Ms. Rabideau to sit for Mr. Burnside. He then introduced the members of the board and announced the public hearing to review proposed changes to zoning ordinances and Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations. The first item for review was a citizens petition to rezone a portion of Route 9 from Highway Business District to Residential District. Mr. Rowehl asked Mr. Snow, who was one of the sponsors of the petition, to make his presentation.
Mr. Snow described the area to be rezoned as from the junction of Liberty Farm Road & Reed Carr Road along Route 9 to the Antrim/Stoddard town line and a distance of 1,000 feet north and south of the centerline of Route 9. He stated that the primary reason for rezoning the area to residential would be to preserve the character of the town as it now is. He noted that there has been rapid residential growth in the area to be rezoned. He felt that commercial development would be detrimental to the character of the area. He also cited the preservation of historical sites & natural resources. Following Mr. Snow’s presentation, Mr. Rowehl asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter.
Mr. Prokop, Town Administrator said that the town is not taking a position either for or against the petition but it was important that the voters understood the facts and the needs of the town. A significant fact is that commercial activity in Antrim is paying only 6% of taxes and the homeowner is paying 87%. Removing land from commercial use will place a heavier burden on the taxpayers. He cited a newspaper article, which proclaimed a residential boom in the area to be rezoned. In reality there was only one commercial development and nine new homes over a five-year period. That compared to 14 subdivisions, 70+ homes and 8 new businesses over the same time period in the Route 202, Elm Ave., Pierce Lake Road triangle. He referenced a recent survey conducted wherein residents repeatedly asked for improved services but without an increase in
taxes. He noted that the average home generates $2,414 in tax revenue whereas the average business generates $6,922 Rezoning from commercial to residential will reevaluate the assessed rate on an average commercial lot from $70,000 to $45,000 which translates into an additional $125 in taxes per homeowner. Mr. Prokop cited preliminary planning by the State to build a rest area on Route 9 in Antrim and he also noted that property currently being advertised for sale as commercial would be depreciated causing a financial loss to the owners. Mr. Prokop’s comments are documented in file # 2004-26PB.
Ms. Nelkens spoke on the necessity to preserve the rural character of the town. She felt that the planing board was only concerned with money as evidenced by the fact that one of the members was a developer and another a financial manager.
Mr. Buschbaum, the owner of commercial property stated that the organizers behind the petition where not motivated by the best interest of the town but simply to protect the area around their own property without consideration of the effect on the tax burden. He emphasized that the petition was contrary to the goals stated in the Master Plan. A detailed documentation of Mr. Buschbaum’s comments in file #2004-26PB.
Mr. Block explained that a significant portion of the area to be rezoned was already protected by conservation easements or were wetlands, which could not be developed. He contended that the petition was not removing as much land from commercial usage as had been implied by others. A copy of a map prepared by Mr. Block’s is in file #2004-26PB.
The secretary produced an overlay on the zoning map, which showed that the petition proposed would eliminate approximately 53% of the commercial zone along Route 9. He clarified that this was 53% of the geographical area and not 53% of the developable land in the zone. He added that if the petition were approved there would be a net loss of 25% of the geographical area currently zoned as commercial in the town. He felt that perhaps the petition was not well thought out as far as designating the area as residential. It was his opinion that it should be withdrawn and the matter of rezoning the area be studied over the next year by the planning board in conjunction with the conservation commission and a citizens committee.
Ms. Loranne Carey Block spoke in support of the petition citing the need to preserve historical sites, the rural character of the area and wildlife. She also provided a letter dated December 15, 2004 signed by Marian K. Baker, Secretary of the Contoocook & North Branch Rivers Local Advisory Committee which Mr. Vasques read. The letter supported the petition but would have preferred a rezoning to rural rather residential. A copy of the letter is in file #2004-26PB.
Mr. Haggett asked if the petition would be a ballot item and was told that it would be. Mr. Rowehl commented that the state planned to make Route 9 the main east/west highway in New Hampshire. Mr. Block responded that it would never be a four-lane highway and they would have to find another route such as they did around Hillsboro. Mr. Buschbaum noted that the state already has a 50-foot right of way on either side of
Route 9. Mr. Snow commented on the recent town survey wherein residents said they wanted to preserve the character of the town. Mr. Haggett felt that if conservation is important, why not rezone it to Rural Conservation which already exists north and south of the area. There being no further relevant comments, Mr. Rowehl moved on to the next item, which was an amendment to Article XI of the zoning regulation to grant the planning board the authority to issue a special permit to disturb the buffer zone to a wetland rather than obtain a special exception from the zoning board.
The secretary explained that the six conditions for granting a special exception were not relevant to the crossing of wetlands as outlined in paragraph G as they were designed for granting uses involving structures to be located in the wetland buffers. He pointed out that the revised ordinance would still require state approval to cross the wetland and the planning board would still require a report from the conservation commission. Ms. Nelkins felt that the zoning board should not give up control. Mr. Haggett felt that if the state granted permission to cross the wetland, the zoning board should not deny the request. Mr. Pratt, former chairman of the zoning board for many years stated that the wording of the criterion for granting a special exception was such that the zoning board would be obligated to grant the special exception – in
essence – be a rubber stamp; whereas the proposed amendment would permit some local control over disturbing the buffer zone. Mr. Beblowski, speaking for the conservation commission, felt he could support the amendment but added that he would like to see the planning board revise the entire wetland district ordinance to reflect current needs.
The secretary presented a definition for change of use, as there is none in the ordinance. There were no comments. A discussion followed to replace the existing definition for Home Occupation or Home Business with separate definitions for each category. No changes were proposed.
A list of seven ordinance changes which had been approved by the planning board in 2003 but not placed on the 2004 ballot were reviewed and will be on the 2005 ballot.
Provision for shared driveways were proposed for the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations. No significant changes were suggested.
It was proposed to modify the Earth Excavation Regulation operating standard to limit excavation to be no closer than four (4) feet to the seasonal high water mark. No changes were made to the wording.
It was proposed to request four (4) copies of drawings for subdivision and site plan review rather than three (3). There was no discussion.
The members decided not to hear the application of Mr. Elder for a minor subdivision on January 6, 2005 as originally scheduled because revised drawings were not submitted by December 16th as requested. They agreed to hear the application of Mr. Zsofka for a minor subdivision on January 6th provided a special exception to disturb the 25’ buffer zone is granted by the Zoning Board at its December 21st meeting. The members agreed to hear the application of Mr. Harriman for a minor subdivision on January 6th provided revised drawings are submitted prior to the meeting.
Mr. Garrett moved to accept the minutes of the December 2, 2004 meeting. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion, which passed.
The secretary asked for guidance on how to proceed on bringing the remaining excavation sites in town into compliance. The consensus was that each site owner/operator should be notified that their temporary permits had expired and that they had until February 1, 2005 to submit an application for continued operation. Said application would include a reclamation plan. The board agreed that the procedure followed in granting a permit for Mr. Harriman to operate his Elm Ave. site would act as a model for evaluating all excavation site applications.
Correspondence was presented from DES notifying Mr. Knapton of non-compliance on his Pierce Lake Estates II subdivision and another letter from DES advising Mr. Boucher of the necessity to delineate wetlands.
Ms. Rabideau provided documentation regarding Senate Bill 176 establishing standards for the recording of Plats with the registry of deeds. She also supplied information from the NH Land Surveyors Association listing the most common omission on plats as well as definitions, applicable minimum specifications and GPS documentation. The consensus of the members was that the secretary should incorporate this information into the Subdivision and Site Plan Review manual to insure compliance by applicants.
Mr. Edwards moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Valley seconded the motion, which passed. Mr. Rowehl adjourned the meeting at 9:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board
| 
