ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the August 17, 2006 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Fred Anderson Scott Burnside Bob Edwards
Mike Genest Bradley Houseworth Renee Rabideau
Andrew Robblee Ed Rowehl Alex Snow Paul Vasques Kathi Wasserloos
Members & Staff absent:
Mary Allen Brian Sawich
Public Attendees:
Peter Beblowski Melissa Chapman Chris Danforth
Matt Monahan, SWRPC Martha Pinello Geraldine Rabideau Kris Stewart Lisa Stewart Dick Wood
The members convened at 6:45 PM and reviewed the documentation on the agenda prior to the start of the meeting. Chairman Edwards called the Planning Board meeting to order at 7:03 PM and asked the Planning Staff to go over some administrative items on the agenda before 7:30 PM.
Administrative/ Approve Planning Board Minutes: The Board reviewed the August 3, 2006 Planning Board Meeting Minutes and made some corrections. Mr. Rowehl made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2006 meeting as corrected which was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously passed.
Homes at High Hills - Drainage redesign: Mr. Vasques advised the Board that he has received a copy of a letter from Peter J. Pitsas (Project Manager) of Underwood Engineers, Inc. addressed to Rick Fink of Burd Engineering Associates regarding the review of two proposed drainage modifications at the ‘Homes at High Hills’ subdivision. Mr. Vasques explained that the letter is just a confirmation of what they have agreed to with the contractor concerning the design of the drainage systems. Mr. Edwards asked if we are to believe we are not modifying our position because that is what needs to be done? Mr. Vasques replied that he has left it up to Peter Pitsas to decide what is acceptable in this case. Mr. Vasques explained that he thought that the Planning Board would accept whatever the Town
Engineer wants. Mr. Edwards agreed stating that the Town Engineer is our agent unless someone feels differently.
Koziell - Status of Application to ZBA: Mr. Vasques advised the Board on the status of the application filed by the Koziells to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to the multifamily housing ordinance that requires such a building to be connected to the Town water and sewer system. Mr. Vasques stated that the hearing for the Koziells will be at the next ZBA meeting, scheduled for September 5, 2006 at 7:15 PM at the Antrim Town Hall.
Tyler – Status of Application to PB: Mr. Vasques advised the Board on the status of the application filed by James Tyler to the Planning Board for a change of use regarding the expansion of his business to rent U-Haul trucks and trailers. Mr. Vasques stated that he and the Planning Technician, Bradley Houseworth, had sat with Mr. Tyler, reviewed the checklist, and solicited more information. The public hearing is scheduled for September 7, 2006 at 7:30 PM at the Antrim Town Hall.
Mr. Edwards stated that he wasn’t present at the last meeting and thought that Tyler had already received approval from the Board for a change of use and asked if this is something different. Mr. Vasques explained that Mr. Tyler first went to the ZBA to get approval for the rental of trucks and trailers in the Village Business District, which is not a permitted use in this district. Mr. Vasques stated that the ZBA granted him a variance to rent truck and trailers in the Village Business District so the next step is for Mr. Tyler to come in front of the Board for a Change of Use and a Minor Site Plan Review. Ms. Wasserloos asked if he has permission to rent trucks and trailers. Mr. Vasques replied that he
does from the ZBA. Ms. Wasserloos asked if the permission includes any limitation. Mr. Vasques replied yes and that the Board will receive a copy of them which includes limitations such as buffering, quantity of trucks allowed, etc. Mr. Vasques stated that essentially all the ZBA said is that the applicant must abide by what the Planning Board says. Mr. Houseworth added that the ZBA cannot really set any stipulations on the variance and they can only add conditions to the variance for the Planning Board to consider. Mr.
Edwards stated that they approve the use and it’s up to us to approve the site plan. Mr. Rowehl said that the Planning Board decides, for example, how many vehicles they can park there, whether there is any limit to the size, the hours of operation, and so forth.
Capital Improvement Plan (Status): Mr. Snow advised the Board that he has sent an e-mail to Bill Prokop, Town Administrator, proposing that we send information out to all of the managers in the first week of September and set a deadline for the end of September to receive back all of the forms regarding each department’s capital needs. Mr. Vasques asked what the dollar amount is, Mr. Snow replied $5,000. Mr. Snow stated that he needs to get the basic forms from the Town in order to be prepared to send them out in September. Mr. Vasques said that he would supply them.
Master Plan: The next Master Plan meeting is the public Land Use Forum scheduled for August 24, 2006 at 6:30 PM in the Antrim Town Hall. This meeting is open to the public and the second workshop the Master Plan committee has held to try and get Antrim citizens’ feedback, comments, and concerns regarding the future growth of the Town.
Correspondence/ Cox – Code Violation: Mr. Vasques advised the Board of a letter that was sent by Jeff Parsons, Code Enforcement, to Mr. Burt Cox regarding occupying an upstairs apartment on property located at 11 Concord St., Antrim, NH 03440 (Tax Map 1C, Lot 212). The primary issue seems to be that Mr. Parsons has not been contacted by either the carpenters or electricians regarding completing the repairs necessary in order to bring the property into compliance and the upstairs apartment has already been occupied. Mr. Vasques explained that since the letter was written, Mr. Parsons has met with the carpenter and electrician regarding the status of the upstairs apartment and everything seems to be coming together.
Ordinance and Regulations/ Crockett – Need for a Change of Use? (Site Plan Review): Mr. Vasques advised the Board of an inquiry that was made by Cindy Crockett to the Town Planner regarding the establishment of a bakery in Town and whether or not she would need to come in front of the Planning Board. Mr. Vasques stated that this is a decision for the Planning Board to make regarding whether or not this constitutes a ‘change of use.’ Mr. Vasques explained that the pet store on Main Street, ‘Empire Pets,’ has moved out and Cindy Crockett has inquired about opening up a bakery in its place. Since the Board decided to address the need for a change of use on a case by case basis, Mr. Vasques asked whether the Board wants to consider this a change of use requiring a site plan
review or does the Board want to determine that there is no need for a site plan review because it is a commercial building and there was a pet store before and now there is going to be a bakery in its place?
Mr. Anderson stated that his only concern would be if the building meets fire standards. Mr. Vasques replied that the Building Inspector would address those issues when the bakery is established. Mr. Edwards explained that he had briefly discussed this with Mr. Vasques and that when the building was constructed, it was intended for commercial use, and based on what he understands that Cindy is doing, he doesn’t see any issue with it except that we don’t know the things like what the hours are and all of that, but as far as the use is concerned, he believes it is a compatible use. He stated that the question is whether we want her to come in for a change of use and site plan review? Mr. Anderson replied no and that he thinks the Building Inspector checking it out would be fine in terms of making sure that
it meets current fire standards. Mr. Edwards added that she would also be inspected by the State and they have all kinds of requirements. Mr. Edwards then asked the Board what is their feeling on this? Mr. Burnside said his feeling would be no, it’s a retail business, just as long as they file with Mr. Parsons. Mr. Genest added that it is a permitted use in a commercial building and that we want to be bringing business into town.
Mr. Houseworth asked that if the Board deems that there is no need for a site plan review because it is a permitted use in the zone, how do we handle it when an abutter comes in and is upset about the new business? Mr. Burnside replied that in this case, there aren’t going to be any exterior alterations, only interior changes within the floor space, and if there are any, Mr. Parsons would be aware of them before they happen. He also stated that he wouldn’t even consider it a change of use because it is an approved retail, whether they are selling peanuts or bakery goods. Mr. Edwards added that in this situation there doesn’t seem to be any real residential impact either. Mr. Vasques suggested to the Board that whatever they decide, that they put it in the form of a motion that does or does not
require site plan review so that it is on record. Mr. Burnside made a motion that the site plan review is not required in this case, which was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously approved. Mr. Houseworth confirmed with the Board that the procedure is for the Planning Staff to bring these change of use requests to the Board first, upon which determination will be made on a case by case basis as to whether or not a site plan review is required.
Hendrick, Christopher & Lisa File # 2006-14PB: Mr. Vasques provided a memo to the Board regarding the status of the “Children at Play” caution signs for Lisa Hendrick and her daycare center. Mr. Vasques explained that Bob Varnum, Road Agent, has expressed some concerns about the Planning Board’s conditional approval that the caution signs be placed at the approaches to the Hendricks’ property. His concerns are threefold: 1) Vandals mark them up and he has to maintain them, 2) They disappear and he has to replace them, and 3) they are not recommended by the state (NH DOT). Mr. Vasques explained that he had a discussion with the NH DOT Department of Signage, Sign Supervisor, Robert Lang, and the state’s position is as follows: 1) The State does not manufacture or install
such signs, 2) Such signs are not listed in the federal “Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices” hence are not mandatory, 3) The state does not want the administrative burden of determining when (how many children+ warrant such a sign, and 4) The state does not want to be responsible for the removal of the signs when children grow up and move away. Mr. Vasques explained that the bottom line is that the state is not against such signs but they are not required by federal mandate so they don’t recommend them. Mr. Vasques also stated that Mr. Varnum mentioned that he will go along with the signs as long as the town does not have to pay for them, install them, or maintain them. Mr. Varnum also stated that he had some signs in the barn that he would let the Hendricks have and stated that the signs must be installed four (4) feet off the pavement to allow for plowing.
Mr. Vasques asked the Board whether they want to rescind the conditional approval requiring the signage or retain the conditional approval requiring them to be installed and maintained at the Hendricks’ expense. Mr. Edwards advised the Board that he had spoken with the police officer that originally commented on this matter and the police officer mentioned that he considers it an issue, it is a dangerous spot, he suggested a sign, he wrote it in the letter to the Board, and he thinks it is especially dangerous in the winter time. Mr. Snow responded that if the police officer feels that strongly about it, he thinks the Board should retain the conditional approval. Mr. Edwards added that he thinks it is the Boards’ obligation to make sure it is safe and that if anything ever happened and a police report surfaced
and we waived the conditional approval, that the Board could be criticized later on for not requiring signage. Mr. Genest added that the Board all felt strongly enough about it in the beginning to make it a condition so we should stick with it as a condition. It was the consensus of the Board to retain the conditional approval requiring the signage to be installed and maintained at the Hendricks’ expense.
Zeke & Mack’s Realty, LLC File # 2006-11OB: Mr. Edwards continued the public hearing on Zeke and Mack by announcing that he is going to recuse himself, Mr. Burnside and Ms. Rabideau also recused themselves, and Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Snow to act as chairman protem. Mr. Snow reopened the public hearing, asked the Board and Staff members to introduce themselves, and announced that the Board has received new plans since the last meeting with Zeke and Mack. Mr. Snow asked the applicant to go through the new plans, explain the changes that were made, and bring everyone up-to-date. Mrs. Stewart provided three important items: 1) pictures that were taken of the site, 2) eight (8) copies of a letter from Donald Blanchard whom had done the test pit data that included an explanation of the data, a signature, stamp,
and date by him for the file, and 3) a written waiver request for item B:10 on the checklist regarding the requirement of test pits extending six (6) feet below the maximum proposed excavation depth. Mr. Stewart then explained that reclamation had been done since the site walk in ‘Work Area # 2’ to help reclaim the area in the back part of the property including fixing the slope, seeding, and mulching it.
Mr. Wood then explained the updated plans, all five (5) pages, with new additions and changes that had been made in relation to items that were deemed previously missing from the checklist. Upon Mr. Wood explaining page 4 of the plans relating to the reclamation plan proposed by the old property owner (Smitty Harriman) for what is now called ‘Work Area # 2,’ Mr. Stewart added that the only thing that is going to be done in ‘Work Area # 2’ is going to be the reclamation that was necessary that Mr. Harriman was supposed to perform in doing the retention pond at this particular time. He added that he is not ready to fully reclaim this whole area and he doesn’t intend to dig there right now. He stated that his objective, as explained at the site walk, is that he wants to work in “Work Area #1” and straighten out the erosion control issues in the back section at the same time and repeated that ‘Work Area # 2’ is not to be an excavated area at this time. Mr. Wood continued explaining
the rest of the updated plans. Mr. Stewart stated that he wanted to clarify that at this particular time, the total area to be disturbed by the end of the excavation in ‘Work Area # 1’ is 3.1 acres, but that they only intend to excavate 1.5 acres (60,000 sq. feet) at a time so that they are not opening up all of the land and disturbing it at one time, which would require a NH DES site specific permit. Mr. Wood continued to explain ‘Work Area # 1,’ the gate and rocks to be put in place at the entrance of the property, and that no excavation would be completed within fifty (50) feet of Elm Avenue. Mr. Stewart further clarified that the only disturbance within fifty feet (50) of Elm Avenue is the work needing to be done to the entrance way regarding the straightening of the road on the property accessing the two work areas. He explained that it is not per se part of the excavation area. Mr. Wood continued to explain the general and
special notes on the plans including hours of operation, run-off issues, the location of the silt fence, the two foot berm to be put in place around ‘Work Area # 1,’ the vegetation to be left/ final tree line, absence of ledges, presence of parking areas, and the reclamation plan that is to come within the next twelve (12) months for ‘Work Area # 2,’ etc. Mr. Stewart also explained the proposed actions to be taken to plant pine trees and hemlocks (softwoods) along the northern edge of the property, abutting Mr. Wade’s property. He stated that he worked out an agreement with Mr. Wade that he would plant whatever size trees he could find on the property and Mr. Wade was okay with this. Mr. Stewart explained that they are going to dig back to his property line, establish the slope, seed and mulch the slope, and plant the softwood trees that they can find on the property. Mr. Snow asked the Board if they had any other questions, no
one replied.
Mr. Snow asked if there are any abutters that want to speak in favor of this proposal. Mr. Burnside stood up, introduced himself, and stated that he will speak in favor and that the buffer surrounding the Land Site, LLC property should be ten (10) feet because he is a non-objecting abutter. Mr. Snow then asked if there are any other abutters present that want to speak in favor of the proposal, no one answered.
Mr. Snow asked if there are any abutters that want to speak in opposition of this proposal. Mrs. Pinello stood up, introduced herself, and stated that she had written a letter based on the application that is on file in Town Hall. She asked the Board if she may have permission to read the letter into the record, Mr. Snow said sure. Ms. Pinello read aloud her letter which is on file in Town Hall in the Zeke and Mack folder. The letter was addressed to the Board, is dated August 17, 2006. Mrs. Stewart interrupted Mrs. Pinello’s reading of the letter to make a clarification. She stated that the site walk minutes were incorrect and that they should read that Mr. Stewart stated that high payments were being made on the property, not high taxes. Ms. Pinello continued and was interrupted by Mr.
Stewart. He clarified that what he said in the back of the property on the site walk regarding the timing of the reclamation of the back area and what he felt was only fair is that before he gets into a lengthy reclamation of the back of the property he would like to go forward with the excavation in the front to get back some of his money he invested so he could go forward with everything else. He further clarified the issue by stating that he would like to straighten out the property but would like to also be able to take something out at the same time, as a businessman, to help pay for what he has to put into the property, stating that this is only fair that he could get something to work towards cleaning up the property. Mr. Wood explained that what Mr. Stewart just stated was a response to a question regarding someone wanting the reclamation of the back area to be completed before any excavation on the property was done. Mr. Snow asked Mrs. Pinello to
finish her reading of the letter.
Upon completion of Mrs. Pinello reading the letter to the Board, she requested that the deficiencies and questions raised in the letter be properly answered prior to moving the hearing forward. Regarding the first half of Mrs. Pinello’s letter, Mr. Vasques suggested to Mrs. Pinello that she ask for a separate meeting with the Planning Board to discuss, as a separate manner, the manner in which the Board processes applications and conducts business. In response to the second half of the letter, Mr. Vasques stated that it is up to the Board to decide how they will proceed with responding to Mrs. Pinello’s letter. Mr. Snow stated that he thinks that what the Board should do is to go through the letter carefully and decide if the Board wants to respond; explaining that now is not the time to do it. After a
lengthy discussion among the Board, the staff, and Mrs. Pinello, the Board decided to not address the letter during the public hearing and to issue a formal response letter due to the time constraints and length and content of the letter. After a lengthy discussion regarding the current status of the application, the lack of information provided, and the acceptance of this application as complete, it was determined by the Board that reviewing the checklist would help address some of Mrs. Pinello’s concerns as an abutter and that to be respectful to other abutters present, it was time to hear comments from other folks during this public hearing period.
Mr. Beblowski stood up to speak, introduced himself, and stated that the application did not state any of the following conditions: 1) that there was an existing pit, 2) that there was an existing permit for the property, 3) that there was an existing permit on the property that had been terminated, nor 4) did it say that it was a new permit for an existing use. Any of these things could have been stated on the application; it should have stated one of these current conditions and moved forward from there. Furthermore, Mr. Beblowski suggested that an amendment of the site walk minutes be made concerning the issues raised earlier about the misinterpretation of Mr. Stewarts’ comments and intent. Mr. Beblowski also suggested that the verbal agreement between Mr. Wade and Mr. Stewart concerning the planting of trees and
ten foot buffer be put into the record via a written agreement to be sure everyone understands the agreement. Mr. Beblowski also stated that the test pit data submitted was accomplished in 2004 at the end of a fairly long drought period and the information may not be as correct as it possibly could be and suggested that some additional test pit data be provided to compare the historical data to the present conditions on the site.
Mr. Snow asked if any other abutters would like to speak against the proposal. Renee Rabideau stood up, introduced herself, and read aloud a letter she and Geraldine Rabideau had prepared concerning the missing items on the checklist for this application. She had provided a copy of their letter to the Planning Staff and copies were distributed among all Board members prior to the start of the meeting. Several questions raised by Renee Rabideau during the reading of their letter were addressed by the Stewarts and they answered them the best they could as they came up. In regards to the routes to be utilized by the excavation vehicles and trucks, Geraldine Rabideau stated that she would appreciate it if she could get it in writing that they would not go on Elm Avenue or Smith Road and would go out via Route 9 because
right in front of her house on Elm Avenue the road is all caved in and if anymore large trucks go by, there won’t be a road there anymore. Renee Rabideau finished reading her letter and asking questions.
Mr. Snow asked if any non-abutters would like to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Burnside mentioned that he has worked for Mr. Stewart for nine (9) years and that usually anything he says verbally he commits to. He also stated as far as the truck traffic goes, his excavation company is also very sporadic as far as number of trips per day, and so the number of trucks per day for an excavation site is a very hard number to average out or determine. In addition, Mr. Burnside said that regarding the road conditions for what trucks do to the roads, there are many other vehicles besides excavation trucks that damage the roads and you can’t just single them out and address their actually impact amounts to the road. Mr. Snow said that the regulations call for a bond being provided by the applicant to make sure the
roads are put back in good shape. Mr. Burnside commented that even that is a very hard call, the only time you can use the bond is for the stretch of road right in front of the pit entrance. Mr. Stewart replied that the bond should be put on the reclamation part of the project and not on the road.
Mr. Snow asked if any non-abutters would like to speak in opposition of the proposal. Melissa Chapman stood up, introduced herself, explained that she is representing the conservation commission at the meeting, and stated that the conservation commission did just see the application last night but all the information was not there and she thinks that going through the checklist will provide more information on some of the missing items. Furthermore, she asked how can people comment on the proposal during the public hearing if all of the individuals are not fully informed and don’t have all of the information prior to the public hearing. She stated that as the conservation commission representative, her greatest concern is considering groundwater resources and more information is needed about the test pits, or the need
to do more test pits, in order for everyone to be informed and make appropriate decisions on this matter.
Mr. Snow asked if anyone else would like to speak either for or against the proposal, no one replied. Mr. Snow then closed the public hearing part of the meeting and asked the Board if they have any questions to ask before the review of the checklist. Mr. Rowehl commented that he thinks it would be wise to get into the checklist. Mr. Snow agreed and started the process of reviewing the checklist. The entire checklist was reviewed but the focus was mostly on the items that were previously deemed incomplete or missing. The Board made the following determinations regarding the checklist items:
Requirements from the Antrim Earth Excavation & Reclamation Manual/ Checklist:
1. Item B:3 – Rename Work Area # 2 as ‘Existing Area’ or ‘Reclamation Area # 2’ or ‘Retention Pond Area.’ Furthermore, Mr. Wood said he would take out General Note # 7 on sheets 1 and 2 of the plans because it was slightly confusing: “The purpose of this plan is for restoration of a gravel excavation.” Whether you want to delete the note or change it slightly, it is up to you. We will see how the Board responds to the new terminology or you can just delete it and be done with it. In addition, the Board requested that a note be added to the plan on sheet # 4 of 5 stating, “No excavation will occur in Work Area # 2 (or this area) except for the creation of the retention pond without submission of an approved reclamation plan.”
2. Item B:5 – Benchmarks to be shown on the plan
3. Item B:6 – Add a note on the plan stating that the excavation in Work Area # 1 won’t exceed 830 feet and/ or the lowest finished grade of the excavation area in Work Area # 1 will be 830 feet. In addition, add the following text to General Note # 12 on sheet 1: ‘duration is dependent on market demand for the materials’ so the entire General Note # 12 reads as follows: “Estimated duration of this project is dependent on market demand for the materials and the final disposition of this property is not known at this time.”
4. Item B:8 – Add a note on the plan stating how the observed water table was obtained.
5. Item B:10 – Mr. Stewart provided a waiver for these test pits. After some discussion the Board and applicant decided to not go with the wavier, borings were not required by the Board, and it was decided that the applicant will dig test pits in twenty feet increments prior to further excavation of the area. Add a note to the plan on sheet 3 stating that test pits certified by a licensed professional will be conducted at twenty feet intervals prior to further excavation of the area.
6. Item B:11 – Add a note on the plan stating that the area will be surveyed by Dig Safe for utilities prior to the start of excavation.
7. Item B:13 – Fix note on sheet 5; remove statement that the entrance will be paved. In addition, Mr. Wood stated that he would remove the ‘Access Road Typical’ section on the plans.
8. Item B:14 – Add a note to the plan stating that the pine barrier/ buffer on the north property boundary will be constructed to the satisfaction of the abutter.
9. Item B:18 – Applicant agreed to provide a letter or written documentation from NH DES regarding not needing a Site Specific Permit and from the EPA regarding not needing a Storm water Permit or SWPPP.
10. VI:A - Mr. Wood agreed to add spot elevations on Elm Ave. on sheet 3 of the plans.
11. X:D – Mr. Wood agreed to double check the soil types in “Work Area # 1.” Add a note to the plan saying that all soils in “Work Area # 1” are Adams or Monadnock or both. If there are four (4) or more soil types in “Work Area 1,” the Board would like to have the soil types delineated on the plan along with a note.
12. XII – Reclamation Bond – The applicant agreed to work with a third party (Lisa Martin from Quantum was mentioned) and the Town on drafting a Reclamation Bond that all parties can agree on. The applicant will then provide an estimate to the Town Planner and Planning Board.
13. Fix typo on sheet 3, Special Note # 14 (Numbering Issue)
14. Fix typo in legend on sheet 3 so Wetland box is crosshatched.
15. Fix the finished contour line 875 so it doesn’t cross over the finished contour line 870 on sheet 3. Regraded Road will stop at 350, make sure this is clear on the plan.
16. Add a note on plans stating that the stumps will be buried in the final slopes prior to seeding and mulching.
17. Add a note on plans stating that no rock crushing will be conducted on the property.
Mr. Wood and the applicant agreed to make the above highlighted changes to the plans and get eight (8) copies to the Planning Staff and Board. Mr. Snow continued the public meeting to September 7, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Antrim Town Hall.
Mr. Rowehl moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Snow seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Edwards adjourned the meeting at 11:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley J. Houseworth, Planning Technician
Antrim Planning Board
| 
