ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the July 6, 2006 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Mary Allen Fred Anderson Bob Edwards
Mike Genest Renee Rabideau Andrew Robblee Ed Rowehl Alex Snow Paul Vasques
Kathi Wasserloos
Members & Staff absent:
Scott Burnside Bradley Houseworth Brian Sawich
Public Attendees:
Peter Beblowski Kris Stewart Matt Monahan, SWRPC
Lisa Stewart Matt Miller Chris Danforth
Phebe Lewan Geraldine Rabideau Joyce Kerda
Doris Edwards Harold Wood, PE Ms. Pinello
The meeting opened at 7:00 PM with members reviewing documentation which would presented on the agenda.
Administrative: Ms. Wasserloos made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 15th meeting as presented which was seconded by Ms. Allen and passed. The Secretary distributed updated copies of the roster of the Board.
Subdivision Status Reports: A letter from Underwood Engineering dated July 5, 2006 was presented which gave the status report of construction work on the following subdivisions: Mulhall Heights, Pierce Lake Estates II and Homes at High Hills. There were no major problems and minor issues were being resolved. A copy of the report is in the respective files.
Pierce Lake Estates II File #2005-12PB: Underwood Engineering provided a letter addressed to Glover Construction calling attention to groundwater seepage along a portion of the road. The letter requested that the contractor provide their engineers input toward a solution.
Buschbaum File # 2004-11PB: Mr. Vasques advised the members that Mr. Buschbaum had abandoned his plans to operate a sawmill on his property and has placed the land up for sale.
Homes at High Hills File # 2005-5PB: Mr. Vasques advised the members that payment had been received for the construction monitoring by Underwood Engineering, that a pre construction meeting was held on July 3rd and road construction started on July 5th.
CBS Holdings, LLC: File # 2006-01PB: A letter dated June 23rd from Underwood Engineering was presented which indicated that drawings were submitted to DES requesting a change in the culvert from galvanized material to concrete. Pending a reply, the project will proceed to the finalization of the Mylars.
Master Plan: The next Master Plan meeting is scheduled for August 8th. It is expected that the first draft of sections will be available.
Miller, Matthew & Sherry File # 2006-13PB: At 7:30 PM Mr. Edwards opened the pubic meeting on the request of Matthew and Sherry Miller to establish a Home Occupation on property located at 5 Mescilbrooks Road, Antrim, NH 03440 Tax Map 1C, Lot 142 in the Residential District. The applicant proposes to operate a printing shop. Members of the Board introduced themselves and Mr. Edwards outline the procedure to be followed during the public hearing. Mr. Miller presented a written proposal and provided much of the information requested by Mr. Houseworth in his letter of June 21st. He indicated that 95% of his business will be conducted via phone, e-mail and fax and there would be limited walk in business. He provided a sketch showing the dimension of the driveway as 24’ x 110’ and a drawing showing how he
would incorporate an office in a section of the 36’ x 40’ garage. He plans to reconfigure the garage door to allow windows for the office area. The electrical wiring in the garage is sufficient for the operation and no changes will be made. There will be no plumbing in the garage and sanitary facilities for employees will be in the main residence. Mr. Miller indicated that other than himself, there would be only one more employee. He indicated that there will be a sign at the end of the road and one on the building in conformance with the sign ordinance. All activity will be within the garage and there will be no outside storage. Waste products will be placed in a dumpster. Materials requiring special disposal (a list is in the file) will be handled per MSDS instructions. The office hours will be from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday; however, the shop hours will be from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday – Friday. Mr. Miller said there would be no silk screening
of T-shirts. He stated that it was not necessary for him to have a hazardous waste license. Ms. Wasserloos asked how many presses would be used. Mr. Miller indicated that there would be only one press and it occupies about three cubic feet. There would also be some small accessory equipment. Ms. Wasserloos was also concerned about the noise that the press would generate. Mr. Miller said that it was quite low and it was possible to carry on a conversation will standing alongside the press. He added that he has plans to insulate the garage which would further lessen noise disbursement to the outside. Mr. Snow asked how waste products would be disposed of and if any of them were flammable. Mr. Miller indicated that the flash point would be in excess of 250 degrees and that all waste products would be placed in the dumpster. Ms. Wasserloos asked if there were any explosive materials and Mr. Miller indicated there was no more than one would find in a garage with lawn mowers and gasoline
storage. Ms. Allen was concerned about parking for employees and delivery trucks. Mr. Miller indicated that although the driveway was not paved, six vehicles could easily be parked and there would be plenty of room for UPS and delivery trucks to turn around. He did not expect any eighteen-wheelers to be making deliveries. Supply deliveries would be about every two weeks. Personal vehicles would be parked at the residence. There would be no parking on Mescilbrooks Drive. Mr. Genest wondered how clean up would be done if there was not a source of water in the garage. Mr. Miller explained that the ink on the press would be wiped down with special rags and they would be disposed of in the dumpster. This would only be done at the end of the day and not at each color change. Mr. Robblee asked about the tri-axle dump truck on the property. Mr. Miller said he is not doing any repair work on it and he plans to give that business up. Mr. Snow moved that there was sufficient information
submitted to accept the application. Mr. Robblee seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Rowehl – aye, Mr. Robblee – aye, Ms. Allen – aye, Mr. Genest – aye, Mr. Snow – aye, Mr. Anderson – aye.
Mr. Edwards asked if there were any abutters who wished to speak in favor of the application. There was none. He asked for abutters who opposed the application. Ms. Edwards expressed concern about the increase in traffic. She commented on the large amount of traffic already on North Main Street generated by the Antrim Lumber Company and the Chauncey excavation operation. She pointed out that there are no sidewalks on North Main Street. Because of the traffic concerns, she was against the establishment of another business in the area. Ms. Leman was concerned about the noise currently in the area and was opposed to the application because of the possibility of increased noise. Both abutters felt that their concerns would be exacerbated if the business were to grow. Mr. Miller rebutted that the garage door would be kept closed to maintain
the proper climate conditions for the printing and traffic would probably not exceed one UPS deliver/pickup per day, a supply truck once every two weeks and maybe one or two customers per day. Mr. Edwards added that if the business were to grow beyond having more than one other employee, it would be necessary for Mr. Miller to reappear before the Board for an expansion. Members then reviewed the checklist. All items were satisfied with the following specific notations:
1. There will be a security light above the garage door but it will not be on all the time.
2. No materials will be disposed of in the sewerage system.
3. The Board would like the Road Agent’s response to the Police Departments concerns regarding the bushes at the end of the road and the possible installation of a stop sign.
Ms. Allen moved that a site walk be conducted before a decision is made regarding the application. Mr. Genest seconded the motion which passed. A site walk was scheduled for July 10th at 5:00 PM. Mr. Miller gave permission for the abutters to attend the walk. Mr. Edwards continued the public hearing to July 20th at 7:30 PM.
Zeke & Mack’s Realty, LLC File # 2006-11OB: Mr. Edwards then announced the public hearing on the request of Zeke & Mack’s Realty LLC for a permit to operate an Earth Excavation Site for property located on Elm Avenue, Antrim, NH 03440 Tax Map 8A, Lot 23 in the Rural District. Mr. Edwards appointed Ms. Allen as Chairmen Pro-Tem as he had to recuse himself. Ms. Rabideau, an abutter, also had to recuse herself. Ms. Allen appointed Ms. Wasserloos to sit for Mr. Edwards and asked Mr. Stewart to make his presentation. He explained that he had acquired the reclamation plans of the former Harriman excavation site and it was his plan to reclaim the front portion of the property as shown on the drawings submitted. The only significant difference would be the road design. They planned to move the road away from the
Wade property and to regrade it with slopes that are more acceptable. He explained that the front portion of the property contained a good portion of sand which they would be excavating as the need for the product arose. He said they had done some test pits but did not hit water; however, he did not present any test pit data. He indicated that he would have the same operating hours that had been granted to Harriman when his permit was issued. Ms. Allen opened the public hearing and asked for abutters who wished to speak in favor of the application. There was none. She asked to hear from abutters in opposition. Mr. Beblowski was upset that there were blatant deficiencies in the application and felt that the applicant was shirking his responsibility to provide the required information. He was concerned because the area sits on a large aquifer and he wants to see what effect there will be because of the excavation and reclamation. He also felt that there was the possibility of a
negative impact on the area. He was concerned that no provision was made for a gravel mat at the entrance and commented on the large amount of mud left on Elm Avenue when stumps were disposed of on the site. He also felt that the entrance should be gated as there is continuing misuse of the property and, because of its proximity to Route 9, has the potential of becoming a dumping ground. Ms. Pinello said the road is already heavily traveled with vehicles having nothing to do with the site and that the site is being inappropriately used for such activities as the discharge of firearms. She was appalled that the applicant had not submitted test pit data and felt that the applicant’s submission was very unprofessional. She chided the Planning Department staff for even permitting the application to appear before the Board. Ms. Rabideau was concerned that only two of the items on the checklist had been satisfied. She submitted a letter to the staff outlining her concerns, a copy
of which is in the file. She also pointed out that she had observed vehicles going into the site on Fridays and not coming out until the weekend was over and suggested that people may be camping or partying there. Ms. Stewart said that they were aware that the area may be being used as a “party spot” and Mr. Stewart said he definitely felt a gate should be put up and he would do so. Ms. Geraldine Rabideau asked if there were plans to subdivide the site. Ms. Stewart said that they had no intention to do so. Mr. Beblowski added that a great deal of the area had been excavated and he would like to see as much of it as possible be reclaimed. Ms. Kerda said that she was representing Ms. Spaulding who could not attend. Ms. Spaulding was concerned about the hearing as expressed in a letter submitted to Mr. Houseworth dated July 2nd and which is on file. Mr. Vasques explained that Ms. Spaulding had confused the public hearing for changes in the Subdivision and Site Plan Review
Regulations with the hearing on the application of Zeke and Macks Realty. He did read into the record Ms. Spaulding’s concerns regarding noise, traffic road wear and her statement that this is not a commercial area and excavation sites should not be allowed. A lively debate followed regarding whether or not the Board should accept the application because of the insufficiency of the information provided. Mr. Stewart admitted that he was aware of the lack of information but they did want to appear before the Board to hear what would be required and to have the input from the abutters. Mr. Robblee pointed out that if the application was not accepted, the Board would be deprived of the input from the abutters and Mr. Stewart would not be able to address their concerns at this time. Mr. Robblee moved that the application be accepted. Mr. Genest seconded the motion. Roll Call vote: Mr. Rowehl – aye, Mr. Robblee – aye, Ms. Wasserloos – aye, Mr. Genest – aye,
Mr. Snow – abstained, Mr. Anderson – nay. The motion carried. Mr. Stewart was referred to the checklist, Ms. Rabideau’s e-mail and the peer review conducted by SWRPC and told that the missing information was required or a waiver requested. Ms. Wasserloos moved that a site walk be conducted. Mr. Genest seconded the motion. A walk was scheduled for July 18th at 5:30 PM at the entrance to the site. Mr. Stewart gave permission for abutters to attend the site walk. The public hearing was continued until August 17th at 7:30 PM because of the time required by Mr. Wood, the engineer for Zeke & Macks to prepare the necessary drawings.
Mr. Edwards and Ms. Rabideau resumed their seats on the Board and Mr. Edwards opened the public hearing on proposed revisions to the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations. The following changes were proposed:
1. Procedure for the acceptance of an application
The following underlined and italicized change is proposed for Section IV, paragraph B.2 of the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations to insure that the required information is supplied with an application to allow the Planning Board to accept or deny an application.
“2. An application will be accepted only if all requirements of these regulations have been met. If there are any missing components to the application, checklist, or plat(s), the applicant must submit waivers for the missing items and/ or if waivers are not applicable or submitted, the Planning Board must determine if there is sufficient information included or submitted to make an informed decision in order to accept the application as complete.” In case of non-acceptance of any application submitted to the Board, the grounds for such non-acceptance shall be stated in the minutes or records of the Planning Board and the applicant shall be notified of the action taken in writing not more than ten 10) days after the date of such action.”
Following some discussion, it was felt that the proposed changes did not sufficiently clarify what would constitute sufficient information to accept an application and more work should be done to clarify the requirement. Ms. Allen moved to not adopt the proposed change. Mr. Roblee seconded the motion which passed.
2. Remove requirement for a note on the plat noting conditions of approval
Section V, B.4.a.6. and C.2.a.6 of the “Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations” state that, “The plan shall have a note which reads, “Subject to conditions as noted in the Decision of approval granted (date).” (Amended 2/2/06)
According to RSA 674:36 Subdivision Regulations, Section III.(a): “The regulations or practice of the planning board: (a) May provide for the conditional approval of the plat before such improvements and installations have been constructed, but any such conditional approval shall not be entered upon the plat.”
The Board proposes the deletion of the above regulations (Section V, B.4.a.6 and C.2.a.6) from the “Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations,” as it does not comply with the state regulation (RSA 674:36).
There was no public comment. Mr. Genest moved to adopt the change. Ms. Allen seconded the motion which passed.
3. Establish a time frame within which conditions of approval must be met.
Currently, there is no time period within which the conditions of approval must be met. Town Counsel has recommended that a specified period be established within which all conditions must be met or the applicant reappear before the Planning Board for an extension. It is proposed that the following paragraph be added to Section IV: Procedure, C. Board Action on Completed Application, of the “Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations”:
“4. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of approval granted by the Planning Board must be met within one year from the date conditional approval is granted. Failure to meet this one-year deadline by the applicant will result in the approval being deemed null and void. The applicant may file an application with the Planning Board to extend the deadline for meeting conditions, providing that such filing is received by the Planning staff thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.”
There was no public input. Ms. Allen moved that the change be adopted. Mr. Snow seconded the motion which passed.
4. ANTRIM ROAD ACCEPTANCE, REOPENING AND RECLASSIFICATION POLICY
ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW ROAD
In accordance with RSA 674:40-a, the authority to accept dedicated streets was delegated to the Board of Selectmen by the legislative body of the Town of Antrim at the March 6, 1973 Town Meeting by vote in the affirmative on Article 16.
The following procedures shall apply to any person proposing to create a new road or highway, in conjunction with an application for subdivision or site plan review, intended to be dedicated to the Town of Antrim for acceptance by the Town:
1. The proposed road design, prepared in accordance with the Town of Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations and Road Design Specifications, shall be submitted to the Planning Board with an application for subdivision or site plan review. A note on the subdivision plan should clearly indicate the applicant’s intention to dedicate the proposed new highway or road to the Town.
2. Upon receipt of a subdivision or site plan review application showing a proposed new road to be dedicated to the Town, the Planning Board Secretary will distribute copies of the plans to the Board of Selectmen, Town Planner, Road Agent, Police Chief, and Fire Chief for review and comment. Comments provided by these local officials will be considered by the Planning Board during the initial acceptance and final approval stages of the application review process.
3. The Planning Board will review the application in accordance with 676:4, including the proposed road design, and may ask the Town’s consulting engineer to review and comment on the proposed road design to ensure the plan is in conformance with the Town’s regulations and road design specifications. Such review shall be at the expense of the applicant.
4. Should the Planning Board vote to approve the application, the applicant should be aware that the Planning Board’s approval to proceed does not constitute acceptance of the road, or that the Town will take over the road. This can be done only by the Board of Selectmen after the road has been completed and built to the Town’s requirements and satisfactory confirmation of same is received from the Planning Board and the Town’s consulting engineer(s).
5. The developer shall be responsible for providing and installing all standard street signs and lighting as recommended by the Police Department and required by the Planning Board for all highways and roads at his expense.
6. Once the highway or road has met all requirements for completion, it shall be posted “Private” until accepted by the Board of Selectmen.
7. a. Once the Planning Board has determined that the application has met all requirements, including final inspection by the Town’s consulting engineer, the applicant or lot owners within the subdivision, may submit to the Board of Selectmen a written request to formally accept the road. Upon receipt of such a request, the Board of Selectmen will schedule a public hearing and render its decision considering whether there is public need for the highway.
b. Until such time as the road is accepted by the Board of Selectmen, it shall be the
continuing responsibility of the creator of the road to provide for maintenance.
This may be accomplished in several ways, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(1) The creation of an association with the authority to assess individual lot owners, subject to approval of the Planning Board.
(2) Maintenance by the creator of the road.
(3) Entering into a contract for maintenance with the Town.
8. Once the highway or road is accepted by the Board of Selectmen they will notify the Planning Board, applicant, Post Office, Road Agent, Conval School District, Fire Chief, and Police Chief. Once such a notice is disseminated, the Town will assume full responsibility for the road or highway which shall have the status of a public highway under RSA 229:1, deemed a Class V highway, and subject to the municipality’s duty of regular maintenance as per RSA 674:40-a and set forth in RSA 231.
The Planning Board does not have the authority to accept a highway, and therefore, it is in the best interest of the applicant to consult with the Board of Selectmen at the earliest possible stage
REOPENING & RECLASSIFICATION OF HIGHWAYS
A previously discontinued highway may be reopened upon petition to the selectmen in accordance with RSA 231:22
The selectmen, upon petition, have the authority to reclassify an existing Class IV, Class V or Class VI highway in accordance with RSA 231:22-aV and RSA 231:8
The Planning Board does not have the authority to re-open or reclassify a highway, and therefore, it is in the best interest of the applicant to consult with the Board of Selectmen at the earliest possible stage.
Mr. Beblowski questioned if the policy had been approved by town counsel and was advised that it had been. There were no other public comments. Ms. Wasserloos moved to adopt the policy and have it incorporated into the regulations as an appendix. Mr. Rowehl seconded the motion which passed.
Swimming Pool Setbacks: Mr. Vasques presented a memo which noted that the supplemental regulations for a swimming pool permitted them to be sited within 10 feet of a property line; however, a swimming pool was part of the definition of a structure which would then subject it to the standard setbacks for structures. Members debated the contradiction and Mr. Robblee moved to delete the supplemental regulation of a 10-foot set back and let the setback for swimming pools be determined by the setbacks for a structure. Mr. Genest seconded the motion which passed.
Open Space Committee: Mr. Edwards said he had been asked by Mr. Levesque, Chairman of the Open Space Committee to have a representative of the Planning Board sit on the reconstituted committee. Ms. Wasserloos volunteered to serve in that capacity and Mr. Edwards made the appointment. The Secretary is to advise Mr. Lévesque.
Mr. Genest moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Snow seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Edwards adjourned the meeting at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Planning Board
| 
