ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the August 4, 2005 Meeting
Members Present:
Brian Sawich Ron Haggett Alex Snow Ed Rowehl
Members Absent:
Fred Anderson Scott Burnside Bob Bethel Bob Edwards
Renee Rabideau
Attendees:
Robert Cloutier Paul Belliveau Leslie Belliveau Harry Clough
Mrs. Clough Mrs. Lauber Marsha Marrow, Monadnock Ledger
John Doughty, LLS Gayle Rochford, LLS
Dr. Gregg Perry Meredith Cooper, SWRPC
The secretary stated that both the Chairman and Vice Chairman would not be present and asked for the appointment of a Chairman pro-tem. Mr. Sawich moved to appoint Mr. Rowehl. Mr. Haggett seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Rowehl designated Mr. Snow to sit for Mr. Bethel. The first order of business was a conceptual consultation by Mr. Robert Cloutier.
Mr. Cloutier stated that he was part owner of two parcels of land. One (Tax Map 1C, Lot 10) consisting of 58.2 acres was off West Street and the other (Tax Map 1C Lot 13) consisting of 7.1 acres had frontage on both West Street and Hilton Avenue. He said that a conditional approval had been granted by the Planning Board for a twenty two lot cluster housing development on the two lots in the early 90’s but development had not gone forward for economic reasons. Lot 13 is in the Residential District and Lot 10 is in the Rural District. Mr. Cloutier presented a plot plan showing Lot 13 divided into three lots. One would front on Hilton Avenue which is served by sewer. Lot 10 would be divided into four lots, two of which would be back lots. A third lot that abuts Lot 62 which is owned by the Town of Antrim would be conveyed to the Town.
Access to the land conveyed to the Town would be off Buttercup Lane. Mr. Haggett asked if the original conditional approval was valid and was told it was not. Mr. Sawich asked if any improvements were planned for the lots or would they be sold as is. Mr. Cloutier said that he was not planning any improvements to the lots. Mr. Sawich asked why Mr. Cloutier had chosen this configuration for the subdivision as he would prefer to see one which would provide more dense housing. Mr. Cloutier said that over the years, a number of parties had shown interest in the property for a cluster housing development but after reviewing the files of the previous application, had concluded that the cost of development made the project economically unfeasible, even with a five-year payout plan. He and his partners were now advancing in age and wished to divest themselves of the land. The members agreed that although cluster housing might be a better use of the land, Mr. Cloutier and his partners had
the right to subdivide as they saw fit providing the subdivision regulations were met. Mr. Sawich asked about wetlands on the site. Mr. Cloutier said they had been delineated on the old application. Mr. Rowehl said that there were some steep slopes on the land. Mr. Vasques asked if Mr. Cloutier would consider some sort of configuration which would make the parcel to be conveyed to the Town accessible to Lot 4 which may be purchased from the Gould Estate and used as a recreational facility. Mr. Cloutier said that he would be amiable to such a configuration. Following further discussion regarding possible configuration of the subdivision Mr. Cloutier was advised that his proposed subdivision appeared feasible and the next step would be to file a formal application with updated surveys.
The next order of business was a conceptual consultation for a proposed minor subdivision of property Map 1A Lot 17 which is in the Residential District. Mr. Doughty representing Mr. Clough presented a preliminary drawing showing the subdivision. Access to the new lot would be off Prospect Street. There were sufficient uplands for a dwelling to be sited; however, access to the uplands would require traversing a long stretch of wetlands. Mr. Sawich asked what the plans were for the new lot. Mr. Clough said that he planned to build a single family home on the site himself. The consensus of the members was that the proposed subdivision was feasible however would be subject to approval of DES Wetland Bureau for the wetland crossing and a favorable recommendation of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Doughty indicated that before submitting a
formal application, he would seek approval from the State for the wetland crossing. Once obtained he would prepare drawings showing drainage, culverts, etc.
Mr. Rowehl then introduced Paul and Leslie Belliveau representing Antrim Mills Corp. They asked for a conceptual consultation regarding the possibility of subdividing the land surrounding the factory behind the Main Street building from the main parcel of land. Mr. Belliveau explained that they had the possibility of selling or leasing the building. A complicating factor was the assignment of charges for common spaces. Since the factory was the largest parcel, it would end up paying a disproportionate share of common space charges compared to those actually used. This condition would make it difficult to arrange a favorable lease or sale. Subdividing the parcel would eliminate this situation. Unfortunately, the parcel to be subdivided would not have frontage on a town road; however would have frontage on a deeded right of way which currently
provides an access drive to the Frameworks factory. Extensive discussion followed to consider means of obtaining frontage off a town road. The consensus was that to do so would adversely impact on the usefulness of the remaining land. Mr. Belliveau pointed out that the current access was built to town road specifications. The members advised Mr. & Mrs. Belliveau that if they obtained a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the Zoning Ordinance for road frontage the Board would consider the application providing other subdivision regulations were met.
The public hearing on the application of the Laubers for a major subdivision was continued. Ms. Rochford, representing the Laubers explained that Mr. Marty Wilson was in the process of completing the engineering drawings for the road based on inputs from Mr. Pitsas of Underwood Engineering. Ms. Rochford concurred that the current plans were for Ashley Road to be built to Class V construction specification to a point seventy-five feet beyond the junction with Green Ridge Road, paved and to be maintained by the town. Mr. Haggett asked if it would still be necessary to move any of the existing stonewalls along Ashley Road and Ms. Rochford said that that she did not think so. Ms. Rochford said that she was waiting for the completed road drawings before submitting the applications for the wetland crossings. Mr. Haggett felt that there was
sufficient information to accept the application and moved to do so. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Brian Sawich - aye, Ron Haggett – aye, Alex Snow – aye, Ed Rowehl – aye. Ms. Cooper then lead an analysis of her peer review of the subdivision drawings submitted. The following items were resolved.
1. The written statement of purpose in note 4 of drawing 1 in adequate
2. Checklist item #6: The scale used for the vicinity sketch is acceptable.
3. It is acceptable to not show the wetland setback line on lot 7/20-6.
4. Checklist item #16: Ms. Rochford will change the wording of note 9 to clarify existing terrain features that do not exist.
5. Checklist item #19: Lot 20-10 will be changed to lot 20 to maintain the parent lot designation.
6. Checklist item #21: Test pit data for lot 20-7 is not required since it is larger than five acres.
7. Checklist item #48: Mr. Beblowski of the Conservation Commission is to be contacted by the applicant to determine the type of documentation required for the conservation easement.
8. Checklist item #50: The Secretary will check for copies of the subdivision approval and if unable to locate them will obtain them from Ms. Rochford.
9. It was the consensus of the members that a legal document for the proposed snow storage areas on lots 7/20-1 and 7/20-9 was not necessary.
10. Ms. Rochford is to provide test pit data.
11. DES permit numbers will be noted on the final Mylar.
Mr. Rowehl asked if the waivers requested on 4/18/05 and 5/19/05 should be voted on. It was decided that all waivers will be summarized and voted on during a final review. Mr. Vasques will compile a comprehensive checklist with all items to be reviewed and the status. Mr. Rowehl continued the public hearing until August 18, 2005 at 7:30 pm.
Mr. Burnside had called Mr. Vasques earlier in the day and said that the revised drawings for the Chauncey excavation sit had not been completed. Consequently, the public hearing on the application to renew a permit was continued until August 18, 2005 at 7:30 pm.
Mr. Vasques advised the members that the citizen’s committee to rezone a portion of Route 9 from Highway Business to Residential was planning to place the matter on the ballot during the March 2006 election. He felt that it would be in the town’s best interest to be pro-active on the matter and work with the citizens to consider modification of the current ordinance to permit certain types of commercial activities and perhaps to rezone certain parts which are essentially undevelopable. Some factors which could be considered would be to create buffer zones and change what are permitted uses. A lively debate followed. Some members expressed concern about removing any commercial property from town because of a loss in tax revenue and felt things should be left as they are. Others felt that rather then deal solely with the rezoning
of that particular strip of Route 9, the entire town should be studied as part of a joint effort with the Open Space, Growth and Master Plan Committees. Such an approach would take time and probably could not be accomplished before March 2006. Some wondered if the citizen’s committee would be willing to postpone their petition pending a comprehensive study. Dr. Perry was asked, if in his opinion, would he insist on the current approach of the citizen committee to eliminate all commercial activity in the zone. He felt that in a perfect world – that’s what he would like. He also felt that the loss of commercial tax revenue was not a serious detriment. Examples were given of how the Route 101 corridor in Amherst, which at one time contained a number of residences, became commercialized. Dr. Perry felt that just because it happened in Amherst, it need not happen here. He went on to say that, his property contains covenants which prevent his land from being used
commercially. Mr. Snow said he had similar covenants in his deed. The final consensus was that Mr. Snow would let the citizen’s committee know that the Planning Board would like to work with them to consider rezoning that would be both beneficial to the town and still meet some of their concerns for the area. He will ask if Mr. Vasques could attend their next meeting as an agent of the Board.
Members clarified that Mr. Dugre could construct a storage facility on his property since it was considered a permitted use. He would have to apply for a major site plan review. Members reviewed a notice of public hearing for the Knapton subdivision, a thank you letter from Ms. Johnson for hearing her application and articles on Hooksett Growth Management and NH - A Nice Place to Work. A letter to Mighty Oaks requesting a letter of credit was presented. Instructions to the Building Inspector to insure compliance by Mr. Whiton with the Police Department request for security improvements was given the members. Statistics on the number of building permits issued and subdivisions granted since the year 2000 was distributed. Approval of the minutes of the July 21, 2005 was tabled pending sufficient members who had attended the meeting.
Mr. Vasques will meet with Mr. Garret to inspect the excavations sites owned by Mr. Gross and Zimmerman-Weston. The basic goal will be to determine if reclamation is required. Mr. Moser, the engineer for Mr. Jones’ excavation site said that the wetlands had been mapped, the field survey was complete and the final engineering drawings should be ready in about two weeks.
Mr. Snow said that reminders were sent to department heads and committee chairs regarding the August 15th deadline for revised capital improvement requests. He indicated that inputs had been received from the Highway and Fire Department, Ambulance and Government Buildings. He reported that Mr. Sawich had prepared a draft of a Vision statement for the Master Plan.
The secretary stated that he had not completed his research into other towns’ policies regarding private roads nor had he completed a revised draft of proposed by-laws for the Board.
Mr. Haggett moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Sawich seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Rowehl adjourned the meeting at 10:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board
| 
