DRAFT
Minutes of the January 20, 2005 Meeting
Members Present:
Fred Anderson Scott Burnside Bob Edwards Spencer Garrett Mike Oldershaw Renee Rabideau Ed Rowehl Paul Vasques, Secretary
Members Absent:
Bob Bethel Dan Valley
Public Attendees:
Chris Baker-Salmon Ted V Olson Tom Hanna, Atty Jerry Chandler Philip Walling Brian Boucher
Chairman Rowehl opened the meeting at 7:00 pm and designated Ms. Rabideau to sit for Mr. Valley and Mr. Edwards to sit for Mr. Bethel. The board then reviewed the checklist for the Zsofka minor subdivision at 20 Pierce Lake Road Map 7A Lot 60. Item #18 was not satisfied and the consensus was that the setting of the five (5) monuments and the date set should be a condition of approval 5 pins are to be set. The board also felt that the final Mylar should have a note block for conditions of approval as required by Item #23. Mr. Oldershaw suggested that the site should be seen by the board before the public hearing on February 3, 2005.
The board moved on to the Mighty Oaks Realty Major Subdivision Mr. Vasques pointed out that the package was just received this morning and more time was needed review them He suggested that the board review the package on February 3rd and schedule the public hearing for February 17, 2005. The board agreed.
The next order of business was the Fuller Lot Mergers. The parcel of land in the deed is described as five tracts, C, D, E, F, and O. These are identified as Lot 2A-92 on the town’s tax maps. Mrs. Fuller wants to combine tracts C&D into one lot, combine tracts E&F into one lot and have lot O stand on its own. The existing house already straddles C&D. The Fullers want to put a house on E&F. Lot O will be remain as 2A-92 Mr. Oldershaw pointed out that Lot O needs to have access. There was some discussion as to whether Lot O would be a back lot. The board agreed that an easement deed would be needed to access lot O before approval could be granted. Mr. Vasques suggested that an easement for a shared driveway 20 ft wide should suffice. The board concurred that this would be acceptable. The secretary was instructed to
contact Ms. Fuller and request such an easement.
Mr. Anderson moved to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2004 meeting as corrected. Mr. Oldershaw seconded the motion, which passed.
Mr. Rowehl convened the public hearing on the request of Stephen B. Elder for a Minor Subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide property at 38 Pierce Lake Road, Antrim, NH, Tax Map 7A, Lot 62, which is in the Rural District into three (3) lots. Attorney Tom Hanna was representing Ted Olson who was the prospective purchaser of the property.
Attorney Hanna presented two maps. One from surveyor Vorce, Soney & Assoc. and one from Meridian Land Services. Attorney Hanna stated that items requested by the planning board were added to the Vorce plan per Note 9: A special exemption of to the 25’ buffer zone to the wetlands was granted by the ZBA in November. Mr. Hanna explained that there is an existing dwelling on the property. Mr. Olson plans to divide the property into 3 lots which would comply with zoning ordinances; Attorney Hanna provided copies of DES Wetlands and Non-Site Specific Permit #2004-02446 for the wetland crossing on Lot 7A- 62-2. Chairman Rowell asked if the lot size and frontages had been met. Attorney Hanna said they had been. The checklist was then reviewed.
The board discussed Item #14 “Location of water bodies, streams, rock ledges, cemeteries, drainage ditches and bridges” and Item #15 “Locations of all easements or record as of the date of the preparation of the plan”. The question was whether or not a note to the effect that none existed should be provided. Mr. Edwards felt that if a question is asked on the checklist then an answer should be given and noted on the drawing. Item #21 “Ground Control” A motion made by Mr. Oldershaw and seconded by Mr. Anderson to waive ground control was unanimously approved. Item #26 “All bounds are set” Ms Rabideau asked what the permanent marker was at the NW corner of lot 62-2. Attorney Hanna wasn’t sure what it was but was assured by the surveyor that it was permanent and that the
surveyor did not want to tamper with the existing marker. Mr. Oldershaw pointed out that the board needs to make sure that it is a permanent marker before it is approved. Attorney Hanna asked if it could be a condition of approval to put in a permanent marker. The consensus of the board was that the installation of a permanent marker would be required before the Mylar could be signed. Item #29 “Form for endorsement by the owner and the applicant if other than the owner and the Planning Board” The board required that the form be added to the final Mylar. Item #31 “Copies of all existing or proposed deed restriction, covenants or rights of way, etc. applying to the property” Mr. Edwards stated that there should be a note to stating that there are no deed restrictions and the board concurred. Item #33 “Certification by the State Water Supply and Pollution Control Division for the subdivision and or the condition of all existing septic systems”
Chairman Rowehl asked if there was a septic design. Attorney Hanna noted that the signing of the Mylar could happen before a septic design is needed. The subdivision plan was presented to DES for subdivision approval which was granted and meets the threshold that it is capable of supporting a septic system. Ms. Rabideau said that the approval #’s of wetland permits and subdivision should be on the final Mylars and that the wetlands surveyors stamp should be on the Vorce map. Ms. Rabideau noted that the total wetlands on the two drawings differ by 10 square feet and Mr. Oldershaw noted that there was no reference on the Vorce drawings to use the Meridian drawings. Attorney Hanna said that they are both presented as a package. The consensus of the board was that both drawings should be recorded and that the drawings should reference one another. Mr. Burnside noted that it appeared as if Vorce and Meridian shared notes. He felt that the first note on the Meridian
Plan should reference the revised Vorce drawing by date.
Mr. Oldershaw moved to accept the application of Stephen Elder File # 2004-24PB for a minor subdivision of property located at 38 Pierce Lake Road, Antrim, NH, Tax Map 7A Lot 62 located in the Rural District. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into three (3) lots. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Garrett – aye, Mr. Edwards – aye, Ms. Rabideau - aye, Mr. Burnside – aye, Mr. Oldershaw – aye, Mr. Anderson – aye
A brief discussion followed regarding the various items on the checklist. Mr. Edwards moved to conditionally approve the application of Stephen Elder File # 2004-24PB for a minor subdivision of property located at 38 Pierce Lake Road, Antrim, NH, Tax Map 7A Lot 62 located in the Rural District. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into three (3) lots with the following conditions:
Planning Board requirements, commitments and agreements made by the applicant and/or his agent as recorded in the meeting minutes dated January 20, 2005 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 alteration and adhere to all building, health and fire codes.
Both Mylars should note the wetland and subdivision approvals
Item #’s 14, 15,and 31 will be addressed by notes on the respective Mylars
The NW corner of the plot will have a permanent marker installed.
Area of wetlands on lots 62-1 & 62 -2 shall be reconciled on the two drawings
A wetland stamp is required on the Meridian drawing
Mylars should cross reference one another.
The final Mylars shall contain an endorsement for the property owner
Note #1 on the Meridian drawing should reference the revised Vorce drawing by date
The motion was seconded by Mr. Burnside Roll call vote: Mr. Garrett – aye, Mr. Edwards – aye, Ms. Rabideau - aye, Mr. Burnside – aye, Mr. Oldershaw – aye, Mr. Anderson – aye
The members then moved on to review the Boucher application for a Change of Use. It was decided that this would be done at a later date since Mr. Boucher had left the meeting.
The next order of business was to adopt or not adopt the various changes to ordinances and regulations which were aired at a public hearing on December 16, 2005.
The first item to be considered was a citizen’s petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance to rezone an area starting at a point one thousand(1,000) feet north of the center line of Route 9 on the westerly side of Liberty Farm Road, thence southerly to a point one thousand (1,000) feet south of Route 9 on the westerly side of Reed Carr Road, thence westerly to the Antrim/Stoddard town line maintaining a distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from the centerline of Route 9, thence northerly along the Antrim Stoddard town line to a point one thousand (1,000) feet north of the centerline of Route 9, thence easterly to the point of origin maintaining a distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from the center line of Route 9. Mr. Vasques called the members attention to correspondence submitted by Mr. Baker Salmon and Mr. and Mrs. Gould copies of
which are on file. Mr. Baker Salmon spoke on how the frontage would eliminate greater than 25% of the total highway business district. He has a business on Rt 9 and owns land where someone else runs a business on his land. He stated that he bought land on Rt 9 because it was in the highway business district. Mr. Baker Salmon spoke with the SWRPC and was told how the SWRPC assisted in the original mapping of the districts and the project was planned over a long period of time. He felt that the petition had no planning behind it. Mr. Edwards asked if the land was grandfathered or the use was grandfathered. Mr. Vasques stated that the use was grandfathered as long as it was kept in commercial use. The business can change but you cannot have a lapse of more than 12 months. Mr. Burnside stated that he spoke to several people who thought rezoning this area was a bad idea because the town should actually be looking for more land for business rather than reducing it. Mr.
Vasques said that people supporting the petition are concerned about damage to the wetlands; however, such land was already protected by the town’s wetland and shoreland district ordinances and by state regulations. Mr. Edwards agreed that we already have things in place with existing ordinances and regulations to protect those areas. Mr. Oldershaw moved to recommend non support of the petition. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. A voice vote in favor of the motion was unanimous.
A motion was made by Mr. Anderson and seconded by Mr. Edwards to delete Article XI, paragraph G Special Exception Use and replace it with paragraph G Special Use Permit as follows:
G. Special Use Permit
The following uses are permitted within the Wetlands District only after obtaining a Special Use Permit from the Planning Board. All such uses must comply with other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Town of Antrim as well as state and federal regulations. In granting the Special Use Permit, the Planning Board may impose conditions to the extent the Board concludes such conditions are necessary to minimize any adverse affect of the proposed use on adjoining properties, and preserve the intent of this Ordinance. The Planning Board shall act upon the application in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Site Plan Review Regulations and RSA 676:4.
1. Streets, roads and other access ways, utility right-of-way easements, including power lines and pipelines, if so located and constructed to minimize any detrimental impact of such uses upon the wetland.
2. Water impoundments.
3. The undertaking of a use not otherwise permitted in wetlands (that is not already listed in Section D of this Article), if it can be shown that it meets the purposes and intentions listed in Section A of this Article.
In granting the Special Use Permit, the Planning Board shall consider the following:
1. The Special Use Permit shall be conditioned upon the granting of a permit to cross the wetland issued by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Wetlands Bureau.
2. All possibilities for the avoidance of the wetlands have been exhausted short of denying the creation of a legal building lot which meets all zoning requirements for the district.
3. The disturbance of the 25-foot buffer zone will not adversely affect the property involved or any abutting properties by creating a drainage problem.
4. Where water and other effluents leave a man-made drainage system, adequate measures, including but not limited to buffer zones and natural treatment swales, shall be provided to protect the wetland from pollution, erosion, or siltation.
5. Adequate erosion control, including but not limited to hay bales, silt fences, and temporary rip-rap, shall be maintained before, during, and after construction (until site stabilization) to protect undisturbed wetland areas from intrusion and siltation.
6. Reports submitted by the Conservation Commission and the Water and Sewer Department if located in the Water and Sewer District prior to the public hearing or thirty (30) days having elapsed following referral to said commission and department without receipt of report.
A voice vote in favor of the motion was unanimous
A motion was made by Mr. Oldershaw and seconded by Mr. Anderson to adopt the following definition for "Change of Use”
“A change of use of property occurs when the commercial or domestic activity to be conducted on a property differs significantly from that which is the primary activity currently being conducted on the property. Such a change of use requires a site plan review by the Planning Board” A voice vote in favor of the motion was unanimous
A motion was made by Mr. Edwards and seconded by Mr. Anderson to delete the existing definition for Home Occupation and Home Business adopts the following separate definitions for Home Business and Home Occupation:
Home Occupation: Any commercial activity carried on entirely within a dwelling or other structure accessory to the dwelling by the resident thereof”
Home Based Business
Any commercial business that has it principal office on the property as well as provision for the storage of materials, vehicles and equipment; however, performs the services provided off site and is owned and operated by the resident thereof. A voice vote in favor of the motion was unanimous
A motion to readopt the items approved by the planning board following the December 4, 2003 public hearing was made by Mr. Oldershaw, seconded by Mr. Edwards and unanimously passed.
A motion was made by Mr. Anderson and seconded by Mr. Burnside to incorporate item 7 to Article IX, paragraph F of the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulation as follow:
7. Shared Driveways
a. A shared driveway shall serve no more than two lots.
b. The shared portion of the driveway shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide.
c. The shared portion of the driveway shall not extend more than fifty (50) feet from the
intersection with the highway
d. Easements protecting the right of way for property owners must be incorporated into the land
deeds
A voice vote in favor of the motion was unanimous
A motion was made by Mr. Burnside and seconded by Mr. Anderson to modify the operating standards of the Earth Excavation & Reclamation Regulations as follows:
No Excavation shall be permitted so close no closer than four (4) feet to above the seasonal high water table or to bedrock (as indicated by the required boring test pits) nor which would preclude the subsequent reuse of the site in accordance with existing public health standards, zoning requirements and the Master Plan. A voice vote in favor of the motion was unanimous
Motion was made by Mr. Oldershaw to change the number of drawings required from three (3) to four (4) throughout the Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations manual. The motion was seconded by Mr. Edwards and unanimously passed on a voice vote.
Motion was made by Mr. Edwards to adopt the Capital Improvement Plan for 2005-2010. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burnside and unanimously passed on a voice vote.
Mr. Vasques reported on the Planning Board Assistance Program to be provided by the Southwest Region Planning Commission. A summary of the services provided was provided to the members. Eric Twarog from SWRPC will attend the February 3, 2005 meeting to discuss how best SWRP may assist the Planning Board.
Mr. Vasques provided members with correspondence from Town Counsel transmitting the response to the petition filed in Superior Court regarding the Buschbaum decision. A copy of a letter from Mr. Mellen to DES regarding the Knapton subdivision, Pierce Lake Estate II, which implied that Mr. Knapton may be submitting a revised subdivision. A Dredge and Fill application to install Rip-rap along the shoreline at 10 Wheelers Cove Road Tax Map 7A-041 for Leslie Zebrowitz was provided. No approval has been received as yet. A copy of the web site for the Planning & Zoning Board was presented. Mr. Vasques explained how helpful the new town web site is because people can go right to the planning board page and obtain many documents such as the zoning manual, application forms and checklist and tax maps.
Members were provided with copies of a letter sent to owners and operators of excavation sites advising them that they are required to file for renewal of their excavation site permits by February 15, 2005. The selectmen have stated that failure to do so would prevent the approval of Intent to Excavate applications. A discussion followed regarding the continuing need for someone to conduct the inspections for conformance to operating and reclamation standards. Mr. Garrett said that he might still be able to perform that function even if he were not a sitting member of the board. Mr. Garrett also said he would continue to serve on the Transportation committee and would provide feedback to the board.
Mr. Edwards gave a progress repot on the activities of the Open Space Committee. He noted that a presentation is being planned for Town meeting. He regretfully reported that it has not been possible to form a Growth committee as volunteers are hard to come by.
Mr. Edwards moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion, which passed. Mr. Rowehl adjourned the meeting at 9:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Hanson, Clerk
Antrim Planning Board
| 
