ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the January 19, 2006 Meeting
Members Present:
Mary Allen Scott Burnside Bob Edwards Ron Haggett Renee Rabideau Ed Rowehl Brian Sawich
Alex Snow
Members Absent:
Fred Anderson Bob Bethel
Public Attendees:
Thirty one attendees signed in. The list is in Planning Board file 2006-02PB
Chairman Burnside opened the meeting at 7:00 PM by designating Mr. Snow to sit for Mr. Anderson and Ms. Rabideau to sit for Mr. Bethel. He announced that Ms. Henderson was not ready to proceed with the public hearing on her application for a change of use and the public hearing was continued until February 16, 2006 at 7:30 PM. Mr. Edwards made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 5, 2006 meeting as presented which was seconded by Ms. Rabideau and passed. A letter from DES granting a Site Specific Permit for Pierce Lakes Estates II was submitted. Articles from “The Villager” regarding the Route 9 rezoning petition and a letter to the editor of “The Keene Sentinel” by Mr. Buschbaum were distributed to members.
At 7:30 PM, Mr. Burnside opened the public hearing on proposed changes to zoning ordinances and regulations. The first item was the citizen’s petition to rezone a portion of Route 9 from Liberty Farm Road and Reed Carr Road to the Stoddard town line from Highway Business District to Rural Conservation District. Mr. Snow recused himself from the Board because he was instrumental in preparing the petition.
Dr. Perry thanked Mr. Sawich and Mr. Vasques for meeting with the committee to discuss alternates to the petition but said that the time constraints to file a petition were such that there wasn’t an opportunity to work with the Planning Board towards a consensus. He asked that attendees just listen to the presentations and not get involved in biased opinions. He was concerned that an issue was being made about the effect that rezoning would have on taxes. His opinion was that it was not about taxes but rather responsible zoning. He pointed out that in the thirty years that the business zone has been in effect, only three businesses have been established, whereas a number of residences have been built in the zone. He stated that the three businesses generated $6,783 in tax revenue the past year whereas three residential properties
selected in the area generated $14, 816 in taxes. He claims that this contradicts the popular belief that commercial property generates more tax revenue then residential property. He cited a report from the Trust for Public Lands that indicted commercial property does not lower the tax base for a town. He owns a business in Antrim but feels that the town is primarily a residential community which is ideal for raising families.
Ms. Block stated that she has been a resident of the Loveren Mills area for the past 18 years. She said that currently Route 9 bisects a large conservation area in town. She was in favor of the petition as it would consolidate the conservation area. Her written statements are on file.
Ms. Chauncey who owns a business in Antrim objected to the petition. She felt that the matter of commercial zoning in town needs to be studied by the Planning Board and that it is important for citizens to work with the Board. She felt that there should be a balance between commercial and residential. Her written statements are on file
Mr. Prokop stated that Southwest Regional Planning Commission has just received a $50,000 to $100,000 grant from DOT to study the Route 9 corridor between Hillsborough and Stoddard. Messrs. Edwards, Sawich and Garret have been appointed to serve on the committee with Messrs. Vasques and Prokop as alternates. SWRPC will be holding a number of public hearings and the schedule calls for the study to be completed by the end of 2006.
Ms. Nelkens said that she had spoken with DOT and was told that the rest area in Antrim was to be expanded into a major twenty-four hour, seven days a week, truck stop rest area and Route 9 would become a prime four-lane east west corridor. Mr. Prokop pointed out that DOT had revised their plans and that the major truck rest area was scheduled to be located in Chesterfield.
Mr. Salmon who owns two commercial enterprises in the area to be rezoned said that he was opposed to the petition. He felt that there was a process for rezoning property which is properly handled by the Planning Board and rezoning is too serious a matter to be determined by a citizen’s petition without sufficient study by a planning group and input from the public. He was upset because none of the petitioners saw fit to speak to him about their proposed changes. He argued that his glass works was aesthetically pleasing and had no adverse affect on property values, traffic or noise. His written statements are on file
Mr. Block apologized to Mr. Salmon for not stopping by to discuss the petition with him but claims he never saw his car there. He said that the committee to rezone the area did not want to wait another year for the Planning Board to study the issue and it was important to act now, even though there has been virtually no commercial development in the past thirty years. It was his contention that rezoning would not affect the value of any of the commercial land. He felt that only three percent of the commercial land was involved.
Ms. Herne, a realtor, wanted to know why there was such a fuss to rezone if only such a small portion of the land would be affected.
Mr. Stone said that he had collected a number of signatures and that the committee was not against certain types of business in the area but was primarily against large businesses such as Wal-Marts. Ms. White point out that if the zone was changed to Rural Conservation District that no retail would be permitted and implied that the petition was misrepresented to those who where asked to sign it.
Mr. Forsch said that he and his partner had just bought property for commercial development. His opinion was that if people did not want to see commercial development, they should buy the property and keep it off the commercial market.
Mr. Hyde owns property in the North Branch area of Route 9 and he said that he currently has a rifle range in his yard. He is concerned that as the town grows he will loose this privilege and he is in favor of curtailing growth.
Mr. Buschbaum said that he felt he was the cause of the petition because of the Planning Boards decision to grant him permission to operate a portable sawmill in the zone. He pointed out that much of the land that the petitioners are concerned with; namely, the North Branch River, The White Cedar Swamp and wetlands are already protected by State and Federal statutes. He spoke about the current lawsuit against the Planning Board to deny the approval to operate his sawmill. He said that the petition was not about conservation but about property rights. He felt there was a need to balance growth between commercial and residential but this is best done through a planning process and not by petition.
Mr. Lévesque spoke about the wording of the petition. He was concerned because the language in the petition implied its passage would encourage conservation and that this was misleading. He felt that the language on the ballot should not have any reference to the conservation aspect of the rezoning. The secretary read the language that would be used on the ballot item which has no reference to conservation.
Mr. Jacquin owns property in the area to be rezoned. He had no comments other then the fact that he was against the petition.
Ms. Zaluki-Stone said that there are a number of treasures in the area and the town should not only protect them but should promote them as tourism.
Mr. Roblee said that he has a business in town and has been trying to find commercial property for his equipment but there already is very little commercial land in Antrim. He said that people are mistaken if they think that by rezoning the land will go into conservation for use by the public. In reality, the land will be sold for residential development and access for skiing and trial walking will be prohibited by the landowners.
Mr. Holmes owns a residence in the area to be rezoned. He said that he currently enjoys the wildlife around his properly and he would hate to see it disappear because of commercial development but if that happens, he could live with it.
Ms. Mangieri who owns a portion of land in the zone was in favor of the petition because she feels there is plenty of commercial land along the Route 202 corridor available for development.
Mr. Witherell felt that the petition was not about conservation. In his opinion, residences with septic systems posed more of a threat to the land then commercial development would.
The Secretary read into the minutes letters form PB & H Equipment, Inc., Joe & Kathy Koziell and John & Laura Eddy, all which were in opposition to the petition. He also read a letter from the Contoocook and North Branch Rivers Local Advisory Committee which “…encouraged the Board to keep the North Branch River in its rural state”. Copies of these documents are on file.
Mr. Burnside thanked the attendees for their inputs. He said that the Board would deliberate the information provided and would vote on whether or not to support or not support the petition at their meeting on February 2, 2006.
The following changes in ordinances and regulations were presented for public input:
1. Redefinition of “Structure” and “Building”
2. Clarification of “Lot Area”
3. Definition for “Front Yard”
4. Requirement for up to date surveys for subdivisions
5. Requirement for purpose of the subdivision to be a note on the subdivision plan
6. Requirement for waivers to be requested in writing
7. Changes to Major Subdivision requirements
8. Changes to Minor Subdivision requirements.
No members of the public remained to comment on the above eight items and the members then deliberated their adoption.
Proposed changes to the zoning ordinance definitions:
STRUCTURE:~ Any temporary or permanently constructed, erected or placed material or combination of materials in or upon the ground , including, but not limited to, buildings, garages, manufactured housing, radio towers, sheds and storage bins, storage tanks, Trash disposal bins, portable carports, swimming pools and tennis courts. Signs, fences, driveways, roads, parking areas, mailboxes, stonewalls, walkways, subsurface waste disposal facilities and essential services are exempt under this definition.
BUILDING: See structure
Mr. Haggett moved to Adopt. Seconded by Mr. Edwards. Passed.
Proposed changes to the zoning ordinance definition: Delete the following definition of “Area Lot”
AREA, LOT: The area of a lot which is situated within the property lines of said lot, provided that the area shall be measured only to the right-of-way line of any public or private street or road, and that it shall not include any part of a street, road or area used in common with the owner(s) or occupant(s) of other lots.
Mr. Haggett moved to Adopt. Seconded by Mr. Sawich. Passed.
Members felt that the definition for “Front Yard” was not adequate and requires further study.
Proposed addition to the subdivision regulations for up to date surveys:
“Plats for subdivisions shall have a survey of the entire lot. A prior survey may be used provided that it shows metes and bounds, meets all current subdivision regulations for surveys and is acceptable to the surveyor preparing the current subdivision plan by a note on the plan to that effect.”
Mr. Haggett moved to Adopt. Seconded by Mr. Sawich. Passed.
Proposed change to Section V, paragraph A.2 of the subdivision regulations regarding the purpose of the subdivision:
“A written statement of purpose of the subdivision shall be a note on the subdivision plan”
Mr. Sawich moved to Adopt. Seconded by Mr. Haggett. Passed.
Proposed change to Section IX of the subdivision regulations regarding waivers:
Upon a request in writing from an applicant or upon a motion of any regular member, the Board may vote to waive, in whole or in part, the requirements of Section V, VI and/or Section IX when the proposed Subdivision or Site Plan involves either no structural changes or only minor structural expansion, or when, in the majority opinion of the Board, the literal enforcement of the regulation would create an unnecessary hardship due to unique characteristics of the site in question, and such waiver would not adversely compromise the purpose or intent of the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulation.
Mr. Haggett moved to Adopt. Seconded by Mr. Sawich. Passed.
A review of changes to the Major and Minor Subdivision checklist indicated that all changes were acceptable except foe those questioned by Ms. Rabideau and Ms. Cooper. The Secretary will clarify those for review at the next meeting and for possible adoption.
The Board then deliberated on the merits of the petition to rezone a portion of Route 9. There was agreement that changes were necessary, not only for the section of Route 9 in question but that the entire town should be studied for commercial property. It was felt that this study should be done in conjunction with the work of the Master Plan Committee and the pending study to be conducted by SWRPC. Members agreed that this should be conducted under the auspices of the Growth Committee. Members also concurred that the study should have as its objective to propose changes to the zoning ordinance as a ballot item for 2007. Mr. Edwards was requested to convene the Growth Committee as soon as possible to begin the study.
Members were advised that a vacancy for the Board will be open as Mr. Bethel has decided not to run and thought should be given to possible candidates. Ms. Allen said it was customary for the oldest alternate to run for an open seat and encouraged Ms. Rabideau to do so. Sign up for elections is from January 25th through February 3rd.
Mr. Sawich moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Haggett seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Burnside adjourned the meeting at 10:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board.
| 
