ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the September 7, 2006 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Mary Allen Bob Edwards Mike Genest Bradley Houseworth Renee Rabideau Andrew Robblee Ed Rowehl Brian
Sawich Alex Snow Paul Vasques Kathi Wasserloos
Members & Staff absent:
Fred Anderson Scott Burnside
Public Attendees:
Peter Beblowski Kingsley Brooks Leslie Brooks David R. Crane Chris Danforth Wayne Elliott Jon Lipmin Peter D. Mellen, LLS Matt Monahan (SWRPC)
Shelly Nelkens Martha Pinello Bill Prokop Geraldine Rabideau Bill Rist Greg Spitzfaden Kris Stewart Jim Tyler Daniel Wasielewski
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 7:00 PM and asked the Planning Staff to go over some administrative items on the agenda before 7:30 PM. Chairman Edwards appointed Ms. Allen to sit in place of the absent Mr. Anderson and appointed Ms. Wasserloos to sit in place of the absent Mr. Burnside.
Administrative/Approve Planning Board Minutes: The Board reviewed the August 17, 2006 Planning Board Meeting Minutes and made some corrections. Mr. Genest made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2006 meeting as corrected which was seconded by Mr. Rowehl and unanimously passed. Ms. Allen abstained from the vote to accept the minutes as she was absent from the last Planning Board Meeting.
Mighty Oaks Realty, LLC – Letter of Credit Reduction: Mr. Vasques advised the Board that the Mighty Oaks Realty, LLC asked for a letter of credit reduction on August 1, 2006 for their Mulhall Heights Subdivision located off of Rt. 202 (Tax Map 4, Lot 103) in Antrim. Mr. Vasques stated that the town engineer from Underwood Engineering inspected the site and made a determination that the letter of credit could be reduced from the original price of $600,000 to $432,392.19. Mr. Sawich asked for a more thorough explanation of the issue. Mr. Vasques stated that basically the town engineer established the original letter of credit at $600,000 and based on the original estimates of the work he feels that roughly $170,000 of the work has been completed so far. Mr. Vasques continued that should Mighty
Oaks Realty, LLC default at this point in time on the project, there is still $432,392.19 left to complete the construction of the road. Mr. Vasques stated that there probably will be one more reduction on the letter of credit; usually on road construction projects there are two reductions of credit. Mr. Vasques added that it essentially frees up a line of credit for Mighty Oaks Realty, LLC. Chairman Edwards stated that it allows the bank to make an advancement. He explained that what the banks are concerned with is that they want to make sure that the town has inspected and approved what has been done to date so they never have to look back and redo what they already have done; so with the town engineers’ inspection and approval the Board can rely on this and release the funds.
Town of Sunapee – Cell Tower Hearing 9-14-06: Mr. Houseworth advised the Board of a notice of public hearing from the Town of Sunapee Zoning Board of Adjustment regarding a request by Myrtle Wiggins and Cello Partnership, DBA (Verizon Wireless Agent) for a height variance from 70’ to 100’ to construct a ‘Stealth Monopine Personal Wireless’ service tower and facility on 15 Stagecoach Lane in Sunapee, NH. Mr. Houseworth advised the Board that the hearing will be held at the Sunapee High School Music Room on North Road on Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 7 PM.
Master Plan: Mr. Houseworth advised the Board that the next Master Plan meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 6:30 PM in the Antrim Town Hall. Mr. Vasques added that the next Route 9 Study Committee Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 6:30 PM in the Antrim Town Hall.
Capital Improvement Plan (Status): Mr. Snow advised the Board that the forms have been sent out to all of the Department Heads and Committee Members and Directors for the Capital Improvements Program for 2007 - 2012. He stated that they have set a deadline of September 30, 2006 to have the forms completed and returned to Antrim Town Hall and they are shooting to have the first meeting of the Capital Improvements Program Committee sometime in early October 2006.
Correspondence/2006 NH OEP Fall Planning and Zoning Conference: Chairman Edwards reminded the Board about a Fall Planning and Zoning Conference that is being put on by the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) in the Waterville Valley on Saturday, October 28, 2006. Chairman Edwards encouraged the Planning Board members to attend and reiterated that the Town has funds to pay for the members to attend. Chairman Edwards also suggested members call him if they are interested in carpooling to the conference. Mr. Vasques stated that the registration packets will be passed out to the members at the next Planning Board meeting on 9/21/06.
Ordinance & Regulations- Chiropractor Need a Change of Use? (Site Plan Review):
Mr. Vasques reminded the Board that they had decided as a matter of policy that all changes of use will be determined on a case by case basis. He advised the Board that an inquiry was made by an individual to the Building Inspector regarding the establishment of a chiropractor business office in Town in the Doyle Building, right next to where the beauty shop is, and it would take over a portion of what was the old army/ navy store and potentially a portion of the pet store. Mr. Vasques stated that the question before the Board is whether or not this constitutes a change of use and requires a site plan review or does it not constitute a change of use because it is a commercial building and one professional commercial activity is moving in and just replacing another. Chairman Edwards asked the Board what they think.
Mr. Sawich stated that he thought that the Board agreed that change of uses, and therefore site plan reviews, are incumbent on the landlord to apply for a change of use to the Planning Board and not the lessee. Mr. Sawich clarified by stating that the relationship between what the landlord does with the property and the Planning Board’s oversight of that property are through the landlord, not through the tenant, he thought that is the way the direction the Board is heading. Chairman Edwards stated that he had spoken with an individual in another town and asked the same question. He stated an example where an individual whom was acquiring a building that was not the owner was before the Board and in that town the Board required the proposed buyer to fill out the application and come in front of the Board as an agent
for the person selling the building. Chairman Edwards stated that his concern is whether or not the Board should be dealing with the property owner or the proposed tenant. Mr. Vasques stated that it would be more logical to have the individual that is running the proposed business actually be the person applying to the Board and the Board could require an agreement from the property owner stating that the particular activity is acceptable to the property owner. Mr. Houseworth added that the landlord wouldn’t really be involved with the particular hours of operation of the proposed business. Mr. Sawich said he’s not sure if he agrees with that argument.
Chairman Edwards stated there is an issue with that situation because if the Board is demanding that the applicant change particular things to the building and the property owner doesn’t come forward or isn’t a party to the changes that were required by the Board, then there could be an issue with the property owner wondering why the Board is speaking directly to the proposed tenant. Mr. Sawich agreed stating what if there is a parking issue, why would the board make the tenant responsible for making changes to or improving the landlord’s property. Mr. Vasques stated that what you would be doing is requiring the tenant to meet certain conditions, and then it becomes a matter between the tenant and the landlord to negotiate together. He continued saying the Board is not negotiating with the landlord, it’s not the landlord that wants the business, it’s the applicant. Mr. Sawich stated that he disagreed and he thinks the landlord wants the applicant’s business; he’s renting the
individual the property, so if the tenant is within the parameters of the landlord’s building then it’s probably not a change of use. Mr. Sawich continued saying that if the landlord is renting to a tenant that is going to do something vastly different than what is already there, like changing from a retail store to manufacturing, then the landlord needs to come in front of the Board to change the use of the building. Mr. Vasques asked Mr. Sawich if his contention is that he thinks the applicant should be the owner of the property rather than the tenant. Mr. Sawich replied yes, that is his contention. Mr. Vasques stated that he disagrees but said he thinks it is a question for town counsel. Mr. Genest stated he agrees with Mr. Vasques and that it would make more sense to deal with the person that’s going to be running the business and that if the Board puts conditions on the applicant then it would be up to the applicant to make it part of
the lease with the landlord; that those would be conditions upon that individual’s lease of the building. Mr. Vasques agreed adding that if the landlord doesn’t agree to the conditions of approval then the approval is null and void.
Chairman Edwards said he agrees with Mr. Sawich and that he doesn’t have a problem dealing with the tenant for questions regarding operating issues such as hours of operation and the amount of lighting but if the Board is requiring physical changes to the building it seems prudent to involve the property owner in some fashion. Mr. Genest stated that the landlord would have to be involved with the lease; basically the business owner’s lease has to have conditions upon it. Chairman Edwards stated that the Board should probably get Town Counsel’s opinion on the subject to clear it up once and for all. Mr. Sawich stated that he just doesn’t feel comfortable telling the landlord that he needs to do something with his property through the tenant. Mr. Vasques replied that is not the case, the Board is
telling the applicant what they require and at that point the Board steps out of it and then it is up to the applicant to get what the Board wants. He continued saying that if the applicant can’t achieve that, then the application is not approved. Mr. Sawich stated that if the applicant’s business falls within the use of the property then the applicant shouldn’t have to come in front of the Board at all. He continued stating that if the landlord is going to have a tenant that is doing something outside of the scope of the use of the building, then the landlord needs to come for a change of use. Mr. Sawich continued saying that if the tenant is within the use of the building then he thinks the applicant doesn’t need to come in front of the Board. Mr. Vasques stated that we are back to the original question, does the chiropractor need to come before the Board for a change of use.
Mr. Houseworth advised the Board members to keep in mind the precedence they set at the last meeting by allowing Cindy Crockett to establish a bakery without a change of use or minor site plan review. Ms. Rabideau clarified by asking that isn’t Cindy Crockett taking over the pet store to establish a bakery and now you are saying part of the old pet store will be part of the new chiropractor office. Mr. Vasques stated that is correct but they are negotiating now who will take over what. Ms. Allen stated that when you have a building like this one and the uses start to change and there isn’t much traffic then that is one thing. However, if the traffic starts to increase then you have parking issues, particularly businesses on Main Street that don’t have their own parking lots. Ms. Allen also
mentioned that the Town does have a parking lot next door and parking strips along Main Street but as more businesses move in, like a bakery with increased traffic at certain times, then it does become an issue for the entire building and the landlord or property owner. Chairman Edwards stated that if the proposed new business is a permitted use in a retail or office space in that zoning district, how does the Board justify the requirement of the new business owner needing to come in front of the Board? Ms. Allen replied through the site plan review process and this is when the traffic control issues are addressed. Mr. Edwards asked the Board if the proposed new business is a permitted use then does it still need a site plan review. Mr. Vasques added that the town zoning ordinances do spell out parking requirements for retail operations, restaurants, for all different types of business activities; so a site plan review considers those issues. Chairman
Edwards stated that it is possible then to have a place with a greater impact than normal, even if it is a permitted use, which may not be allowed to be there. He continued stating that if that’s the case, then we are back to the site plan review for things that may be a permitted use for that zoning district.
Mr. Vasques reminded the Board of their position at the last meeting: that if it is a commercial building then you don’t need to do a site plan review if one store goes out and another comes in. Chairman Edwards stated that he has a problem with requiring a site plan review if the intended new business is a permitted use in that particular zoning district. Chairman Edwards stated that his first thought about a chiropractor practice going in to that building, where it is a permitted use, is that it doesn’t necessarily require a site plan review.
Mr. Vasques asked the Board if they are comfortable enough to make a decision since the landlord wants to sign a lease with this individual. Mr. Sawich asked Mr. Vasques if we can get Town Counsels’ opinion on whether the Board should be working with the tenant or the landlord. Mr. Wood added that in other towns he can represent anyone as along as there is a letter in the file from the owner saying that he can represent them. He stated that as far as the parking issue, if that landlord wants that tenant in there, then he’s going to work with them to make it happen unless it is too expensive or not cost effective. He continued stating that it is the tenant/ applicant’s responsibility to work with the owner of the building and if the Board deals directly with the owner of the building then that
individual may not have all of the answers that the Board requires. Mr. Robblee asked Mr. Vasques if this is the same landlord as the one for Cindy Crockett and her bakery. Mr. Vasques replied yes. Mr. Robblee responded so how can the Board let Cindy Crockett move in with a bakery without a site plan review and require it for the individual establishing a chiropractor office in the same building. Mr. Houseworth agreed, stating that the Board needs to try and be consistent with their decisions. Mr. Vasques proposed the following solution: can we separate a policy position on how to deal with change of uses from a specific application where they want to put in a chiropractor practice in a building where the Board just approved a bakery to go in without a change of use and give the building inspector a decision without delaying it for another week or two? Mr. Vasques reiterated his statement stating that all he is pointing out to the Board is that
the Board was comfortable enough to let a bakery into this building without a site plan review and he is wondering why they wouldn’t do that for a chiropractor that is going to have a lot less traffic.
Chairman Edwards stated that he doesn’t have an issue with it himself. Ms. Allen said she doesn’t have an issue with this specifically but this is something the Board needs to look at and fine tune. She continued saying that more than anything else, it’s not a question of permitted uses, but at some point is it going to be the responsibility of the town to provide additional parking in the downtown. Mr. Vasques stated that he agrees with Ms. Allen but if we could put the chiropractor behind us then the planning staff can talk with Town Counsel and make recommendations to the Board on how to handle change of uses in existing commercial buildings. Mr. Houseworth stated that his only concern is that if the Board starts waiving the requirement for a change of use for new businesses that are permitted in
that particular zoning district, then where is the abutters’ forum to speak about the change of these commercial businesses. Ms. Allen stated that she agreed and there is one particular business that moved in that should have included a forum for abutters to speak their concerns. Chairman Edwards stated that he personally thinks that the Board needs to address this sooner than later. Mr. Vasques agreed and said it can be on the agenda for the next Board meeting. Chairman Edwards asked for a motion to allow the chiropractor to move in without a site plan review. Mr. Sawich made a motion to allow the chiropractor to establish an office in part of the Doyle building without a site plan review, which was seconded by Mr. Genest and unanimously passed.
PSNH – Tree Trimming on scenic roads File # 2006-17PB: At 7:30 PM Chairman Edwards introduced himself, asked the Board and Planning Staff to introduce themselves, and opened the public meeting on the request of Public Service of New Hampshire to trim and remove trees and brush along all scenic roads in Antrim starting in September 2006 and ending in December 2007. Mr. Crane stated that what they are proposing to do is the regularly scheduled maintenance and tree trimming. He stated that PSNH trims trees and brush adjacent to its power lines on an average five-year cycle. He said that they are planning on doing all of the power lines in the Town of Antrim in the next year or two. He stated that this work does include all of the scenic roads and PSNH has approximately 17.5 miles of line on
scenic roads in Antrim. He stated that the last time they trimmed trees in Antrim was 2002 so they are a little bit ahead of schedule. He explained the reason why they are coming in earlier than normal is due to tree related outages. He said customers in the Hillsboro, Antrim, Washington areas see outages about 74% more frequently than an average customer and on scenic roads it is actually 166% more frequent than an average customer. Mr. Crane stated that scenic roads are more heavily wooded so they expect more outages but PSNH has a serious problem with tree related outages. He stated that the specifications will be the same as those used in 2002 and in general they clear anything four inches (4”) in diameter or less within eight (8) feet to the side of the power lines, fifteen (15) feet over, or ten (10) feet below their power lines. He said they also take down larger trees on a case by case basis if they are dead, diseased, or
structurally defective and pose a threat to PSNH lines or other equipment. He stated that they hire a contractor to conduct the actual trimming of the trees, Asplundh Tree Expert Company, and PSNH requires them to contact each landowner where trees are to be trimmed prior to commencement of the work on their property or frontage of their property. Mr. Crane stated he would be more than happy to take any questions from the Board regarding this proposal.
Chairman Edwards asked Mr. Crane what type of oversight he has as PSNH with their contractors or subcontractors. Mr. Crane replied that it is his job to monitor the work, handle any public relation issues, any complaints, any customers with concerns before the crews get there, or work with property owners if there are any trees they want down. He stated that they also have another arborist who follows the crews and make sure they are doing work to specification and make sure the clean-up is done properly. Chairman Edward asked the Board if they have any other questions for Mr. Crane.
Mr. Vasques clarified by asking Mr. Crane that in the letter he sent to the planning department he stated that all wood that is not chipped is left at the side of the road and is usually intended for people to pick-up. Mr. Crane replied yes, unless requested by the landowner. He stated that by NH statute it is the property of the abutting landowner. Mr. Vasques agreed but asked what happens with it if the property owner doesn’t want the wood. Mr. Crane stated if they don’t want it then PSNH has to make a decision whether or not they want the tree cut down bad enough to pay the extra expense of disposing of it. Mr. Vasques stated that he recalls on some work PSNH did prior to this, that was also done by Asplundh, that the wood was brought by the crews to Antrim’s Grapevine facility, where there
is a public wood bank. Mr. Crane stated he is not aware of this and it may have been done on new power line construction. Mr. Vasques asked if this is feasible to do because it is a public wood bank for individuals that need wood. Mr. Crane replied that typically on the maintenance of trees near power lines, the cost of picking up and disposing of the wood makes it prohibitive to take it down unless it really threatens particular power lines or it is a very important line. He stated that they do work with a lot of towns and have worked with the Road Agent, Bob Varnum, before on assisting to dispose of the wood. He continued stating that if the property owners’ don’t want the wood, and its large wood that requires different equipment to be brought in to pick it up, the towns usually assist PSNH because the trees are a liability for both parties involved, so they often share the costs to dispose of the wood with the towns. Mr. Crane
stated that certainly if there is any wood available and Mr. Varnum is willing to help PSNH pick it up, they are more than willing to hauling it wherever the Town feels it would do the most good.
Mr. Vasques asked the Board how they want to proceed on this issue; it would be a good source of wood for the Grapevine if the town could get its hands on it. Chairman Edwards agreed and stated that it would have to be voluntarily surrendered by the property owner but if the property owner delegated it to go to the Grapevine facility then perhaps the Town could find a way to transport the wood from the road to the facility. Mr. Prokop stated that in the past Bob Varnum has picked up wood or volunteers have helped picked it up along the road with their trucks and drop it off at the Grapevine facility. He added that also in 2002 the crews sometimes were able to drop it off themselves at the Grapevine facility. Mr. Crane stated that he would let Asplundh aware that there is a wood bank in Town so that when they are
talking to landowners, if they come across one that doesn’t want the wood, that they can let them know this option is available and let him (PSNH) know so that he can communicate to the Road Agent or Town Hall to let them know where the wood is located.
Chairman Edwards asked the Board if there are any other questions for PSNH. Ms. Nelkens asked Mr. Crane that the last time this was done in 2002 there were a lot of woodchips available, is there anyway to arrange a mechanism so that individuals can come and pick up woodchips. Mr. Crane stated that the best way is to communicate this when the contact person from Asplundh knocks on your door when there is work to be done on your property. Ms. Nelkens asked about individuals that have no relation to where the woodchips are but could use them, is there any mechanism to put the individuals in contact with the crews chipping the wood or a means to advertise on a website. Mr. Crane stated that he would be more than happy to make himself a contact person if the Town wants to somehow publicize that there will be woodchips
available at no cost because PSNH is always looking for dumping sites and the crews will be all over town so that more than likely anyone in town that wants woodchips is, at some point, going to be near a place where PSNH needs to dump the chips.
Mr. Sawich stated that he would like to follow-up with that if possible. He asked Mr. Prokop if he knows if the Town has any interest in those woodchips at all. Mr. Prokop replied generally no, but added that what the Town could do is post on the Town website that cutting will be done on a certain road during this particular week and woodchips are available at no cost to the public if the landowners don’t want them. Mr. Sawich stated that in his capacity as the Land Steward for the SPNHF McCabe Forest, they are looking for woodchips to improve the trails and he told Mr. Crane that he would love for the crews to dump the woodchips right there in the parking lot so that they can spread them on the trails and improve the trails of the McCabe Forest. Mr. Sawich stated that if the Town doesn’t want the woodchips, the
SPNHF has already authorized him to try to get woodchips for the trails. Mr. Crane replied that he would be happy to get his name and number. Mr. Sawich gave Mr. Crane his contact information. Mr. Crane asked him where he wants the woodchips dumped. Mr. Sawich stated that just before the bridge there is a sign that says trail parking and that is the parking lot where they would like them dumped; on the side of the parking lot.
Ms. Nelkens asked Mr. Crane if the contact person for Asplundh knocks on individuals’ doors and someone is gone for a week, will the crews just go ahead with the work or what happens. Mr. Crane replied no, they won’t go ahead with the work until they contact the landowners. He stated that they try to get the contact people out there a month ahead of the crews to deal with those issues. He stated that obviously people take vacations for weeks at a time and there are some absentee landowners who they have trouble tracking down, especially around the lakes like Pierce Lake, so that is going to be a bit of a challenge. Mr. Crane explained that what they do is they go through, get the permissions, know what their holes are, and when the crews get there they’ll do work where the permissions have been received
and will patch up the loose ends later.
Chairman Edwards asked if there are any other questions for Mr. Crane and PSNH. Mr. Vasques stated that the Board should make a motion to approve the annual trimming of trees in accordance with the PSNH letter dated August 16, 2006. Mr. Sawich made a motion to approve the annual trimming of trees in accordance with the PSNH letter dated August 16, 2006, which was seconded by Mr. Genest and unanimously passed.
Zeke & Mack’s Realty, LLC File # 2006-11PB: Mr. Edwards continued the public meeting on Zeke and Mack by announcing that he is going to recuse himself, Ms. Rabideau is going to recuse herself, and Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Snow to act as chairman protem. Mr. Snow reopened the public meeting by reviewing the updated checklist with the updated plans. Mr. Houseworth suggested to Mr. Snow that he address the other information in the packets before reviewing the updated checklist, Mr. Snow agreed. Mr. Snow explained that the planning staff has received 1) a telephone conversation report from NH DES personnel, Gloria Andrews, between her and Mr. Monahan from SWRPC, and 2) a letter in response to another letter written by Renée Rabideau from NH DES and signed by Amy C. Clark, Alteration of Terrain Program.
Mr. Snow stated that both letters basically indicated that a NH DES site specific permit is required even though a phased plan of action, excavating one acre at a time, is proposed. He stated that the fact that we are dealing with over 100,000 sq. ft., means that that permit is required.
Mr. Snow then suggested that Mr. Houseworth review aloud the updated application checklist with the updated plans. Mr. Houseworth reviewed the checklist with a focus on the items that were previously deemed incomplete or missing. The Board made the following determinations regarding the following checklist items which could be made conditions of approval of the application:
1. Item B:10 – Add a note stating that the test pit data will be sent to the Town.
2. Item B:18 – Applicant agreed to apply for a NH DES Site Specific Permit. Mr. Stewart explained that the agency is very backed up and are just reviewing now applications received before May 15, 2006; they are already back logged by 115 applications. The Board decided to make this item a conditional approval and Mr. Stewart agreed to not do any work on the site until the NH DES Site Specific Permit is granted and a copy is sent to the Town and Planning Board for review. As far as the need for the EPA Stormwater Permit or SWPPP, the applicant stated that they spoke with Murphy, the regional head for the Stormwater Program, and he was told that a permit is not required because there is no egress of water off of the property. Mr. Danforth stated that because the applicant is claiming
that there will be no point discharge of stormwater off of the property, a permit is not required. The applicant agreed to provide in writing a letter from the EPA stating that a permit is not required for this project, which the Board decided to make a condition of approval also.
3. X:D – Mr. Wood agreed to change the soil type from ‘143C’ to ‘143D’ on General Note # 9 on sheets 1 and 2 and on the drawings. Mr. Wood also agreed to add soil type ‘36B’ to sheet 1 in Work Area # 1.
4. XII – Reclamation Bond – Mr. Stewart provided to the Planning Board an estimate quote from Francestown Sand and Gravel Inc. for the reclamation of one acre based on the methods that they use at their pits. Mr. Stewart suggested that one way to handle the bond issue is, because the Board may get a lot of different quotes on how different individuals would reclaim excavation pits, that the Board require proper growth and vegetation so if he states that he can do it for $1,956.40 per acre and the Board deems that he didn’t get the required vegetation, then the Town could get that amount per acre from the bond to reclaim the site. Mr. Stewart stated that he guarantees growth and mentioned that he uses on-site materials and doesn’t use any loam for his reclamation
techniques. The Board decided to make a conditional approval dependent on a third party quote from Lisa Martin, confirming that the quote from Francestown Sand and Gravel Inc. is a reasonable quote, and add a note stating that Mr. Stewart guarantees growth. Mr. Vasques told the applicant that he will take the quote to Lisa Marten and follow up on it. Mr. Stewart agreed to the above mentioned conditional approval but requested that he speak with the third party to determine together a price per acre for the reclamation bond. Mr. Vasques stated that when he speaks to Lisa Marten, he will suggest to her that when she looks at the quote that she will contact Mr. Stewart so that the two parties can come to terms on the amount per acre for the reclamation bond.
5. Fix typo/spelling on Special Note # 14 on sheet 2 of 5 from ‘reclamationB’ to ‘reclamation.’
6. Please have Chris Danforth, the Wetland Scientist, stamp the final plans because he delineated the wetlands. The Board decided to make this item a conditional approval of the application.
7. Fix the finish grades in the legend so they are consistent on each sheet, including a line on either side of the # and a box around the # on all sheets.
8. Fix Special Note # 11 on sheet 2 from ‘disposal those item…’ to read ‘disposal, those items…’
9. Fix Special Note # 13 on sheet 2 from ‘Site Recalamation Standards’ to read ‘Site Reclamation Standards,’ and change ‘Relamation Regulations’ to read ‘Reclamation Regulations.’
10. Delete number 870 on sheet 3 near the text box titled ‘Approx. Final Tree Line.’ Make sure it is clear on the plans, sheet 3, that the Regraded Road will stop at 3+ 00.
Mr. Snow asked the Board what they want to do; whether or not to conditionally approve the application. Mr. Genest asked what the conditions are; Mr. Vasques explained that the conditions of the approval would be essentially all of the items agreed upon during the review of the checklist. Mr. Vasques stated that all of the conditions of approval, those items agreed upon during the review of the checklist, will be listed in the notice of decision so that the applicant will get an official copy of them and the planning staff will make sure they have all been completed on the final plans before an excavation permit is issued.
Mr. Robblee made a motion to approve the application, with the above conditions of approval, 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. Sawich seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Genest – aye, Mr. Rowehl – aye, Mr. Sawich – aye, Ms. Wasserloos - aye, Mr. Robblee – aye, Ms. Allen – aye. The application of Zeke & Mack’s Realty LLC for a permit to operate an Earth Excavation Site has been conditionally approved by the Board. Mr. Vasques told Mr. Stewart that he will receive an official notice of decision in the mail, signed by the Chairman, and the planning staff will be awaiting the updated plans and necessary documents.
Tyler, James of Tyler’s Small Engine File # 2006-16PB: Mrs. Rabideau returned to the Board and Mr. Edwards recused himself. Chairman Snow opened the public meeting on the request of James Tyler of Tyler’s Small Engine for a Change of Use to rent U-haul trucks and trailers on property located at 20 Concord Street, Antrim, NH 03440 Tax Map 1C, Lot 166 in the Village Business District. Mr. Snow asked Mr. Tyler if he would stand up and speak to let the Board know what the proposal is. Mr. Tyler stated that basically he wants the ability to rent U-haul trucks and trailers at his business on 20 Concord Street. He stated that it’s obviously not going to be a lot of trucks and trailers because it is such a small town and he stated that he thinks the Town could use the service. Mr.
Tyler explained that everyone that has rented a U-haul truck or trailer so far has been very happy and they like that they can rent a U-haul truck or trailer locally. Mr. Houseworth suggested to Chairman Snow that he read aloud Mr. Tyler’s proposal letter dated August 15, 2006, which was submitted with the application. Chairman Snow agreed and read aloud Mr. Tyler’s proposal letter. Mr. Houseworth also added that the planning staff has received two reports regarding the proposed activity and are included in the Board members’ packets: one from the police chief and one from the building inspector. Mr. Houseworth explained that both reports state that they have no issues or concerns with the addition of the rental of U-haul trucks and trailers. Mr. Vasques added that the planning staff also received an e-mail this afternoon from Peter Beblowski representing the Conservation Commission and stating that as long as the twenty-five (25) ft.
buffer zone is not being disturbed, they have no problem with the application.
Chairman Snow asked the Board if they have any questions for Mr. Tyler. Ms. Rabideau asked where the proposed new parking area is for the U-haul trucks and trailers. Mr. Vasques stated that the proposed new parking area for the U-haul trucks and trailers is approximately twenty-six feet north of the driveway, to the right of the drive as you enter the property. Mr. Sawich asked how far off the new proposed parking area is from the property line. Mr. Vasques replied approximately fifty (50) feet from the property line on top of a hill or ridge. Mr. Vasques stated that Mr. Tyler has proposed a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet new parking area for the U-haul trucks and trailers.
Mr. Sawich asked Mr. Tyler if he could explain how he is going to improve the parking area, are you going to put gravel down or tar it. Mr. Tyler replied that he is going to put gravel down. Mr. Sawich asked if he needs to do any improvements to the drainage, Mr. Tyler replied he doesn’t think so because it is fairly flat at the top. Mr. Sawich asked Mr. Tyler if he has any standing water problems, Mr. Tyler replied no. Ms. Allen asked Mr. Tyler what his plans are for the rest of the lot that he has already cleared. Mr. Tyler stated that right now he has Meridian Land Services working on it now. He stated that he would like to fill in a section close to the road so that he can grade it off and get it smoothed out. He stated that he would like to mow it and have a field. Ms. Allen asked Mr.
Tyler if he plans on stumping it out, Mr. Tyler replied yes, if he can get permission from the state for the wetlands.
Mr. Sawich asked Mr. Tyler how many U-haul trucks and trailers he intends to have; what is the maximum number. Mr. Tyler stated that it is a tough issue to determine but guesses that probably never more than eight. He stated that he doesn’t expect more than two or three in Antrim but he doesn’t want to say for sure because what there might be a day where all of a sudden four people move into town and want to drop their trucks off. Mr. Tyler explained that U-haul doesn’t leave vehicles sitting; they want them to be used and rented out. Mr. Vasques explained to the Board that this question came up when he was in front of the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance and in the notice of decision issued by the ZBA, it reads that the applicant agrees to limit the number of trucks and trailers as
may be determined by the Planning Board during their site plan review. Mr. Vasques stated that he struggled with the whole business of how to limit the number of trucks and trailers. He stated that he has discussed it with Town Counsel and they agreed that one approach that would work is to specify the parking area where these vehicles will be kept, which the applicant has agreed to have a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area. Mr. Vasques continued saying that the number of vehicles that will be there is what can fit within the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area, and if he parks outside that area, then he will be in violation of the agreement. Mr. Vasques added that he thinks that Mr. Tyler agrees that a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area will be more than adequate. Mr. Tyler agreed, stating yes. Ms. Allen asked Mr. Tyler if these are just trucks and trailers that are going to be parked there, Mr. Tyler replied that the maximum truck size they
have is twenty-six (26) feet. He stated that in other words, a twenty-six footer could end up in town or it could be a fourteen footer, he just doesn’t know. He explained that the maximum number of trucks and trailers he has had so far is three (3), but right now he doesn’t have any. He stated that he can’t really say how many or what there lengths will be ahead of time, he just doesn’t know what will happen. He explained that the other day he drove by the Hillsboro U-haul rental lot, which is very active, and the owner had four trucks and three trailers. He stated that Hillsboro is a very active town and he doesn’t expect to have that many. Mr. Houseworth added that according to the ZBA notice of decision, condition number three (3), reads that the applicant agrees to not rent trucks or trailers that require a commercial driver’s license. Ms. Allen stated which means he can rent out trucks and trailers up to
twenty-six feet.
Mr. Sawich asked Mr. Tyler if he anticipates selling incidentals like packing boxes and doing anything that would require him to expand the footprint of his existing business. Mr. Tyler replied no and stated that if he did, he wouldn’t need to expand his building. Mr. Sawich clarified by asking Mr. Tyler if he has enough existing space for his inventory storage, Mr. Tyler replied yes. Ms. Allen asked Mr. Tyler if he proposes to put all of the U-haul equipment on this new fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area, Mr. Tyler replied yes. Ms. Allen asked Mr. Tyler if he is okay with the Board limiting him to storing all of the U-haul equipment in the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area, Mr. Tyler replied yes. Chairman Snow asked Mr. Tyler if he anticipates any need for additional parking for
customers, Mr. Tyler replied no. Mr. Sawich asked Mr. Tyler what his plans are for signage and if it would be consistent with the Town’s ordinances. Mr. Tyler replied that he already has a small U-haul sign below his regular sign on Concord Street and that’s the only additional signage he will have.
Chairman Snow asked the Board if they had any more questions for Mr. Tyler, no one answered. Mr. Vasques suggested to the Board that they review the checklist and decide whether or not to accept the application. Mr. Houseworth reviewed the minor site plan checklist used for a change of use, with a focus on the items that were deemed incomplete or missing by the planning staff.
1) Item B:2(a) – Shape and Dimension of interior and exterior areas to be used. Mr. Houseworth explained that Mr. Tyler stated that there will be a 50’ x 50’ exterior, gravel parking area and no internal changes made to the building. Ms. Rabideau and Ms. Allen expressed concern that the proposed parking area was not drawn in on the plans. They felt that without this parking area shown on the plan, it made it very difficult to determine if it lies within the twenty-five (25) foot wetland buffer. They stated that they want the applicant to show on the plan the location and dimensions of the proposed parking area for the U-haul trucks and trailers, especially in relation to the twenty-five (25) foot buffer.
2) Item B:2(e) – Driveways and flow of traffic entering and exiting the site. Mr. Genest stated that the ‘right now’ statement throws up a red flag and asked Mr. Tyler if he plans on putting in an additional driveway, if it is permitted by the State. Mr. Tyler explained yes and that what he likes to do is put in additional driveway entrance at the lower part of Elm Street, if he gets permission to cross the wetlands. Mr. Tyler explained that it probably won’t be used very much by customers, or at all, but during the winter if he gets a large tractor trailer coming onto his property, the existing entrance is a very tough driveway to navigate up and back-up so another access road would be nice. Mr. Tyler stated that he feels that the proposed access road should not have any bearing on what he is
applying for from the Board today. He stated that a driveway permit and the rental of U-haul trucks and trailers are two different issues. Mr. Sawich agreed and Mr. Genest stated that currently he is not proposing another access road so it shouldn’t be considered at this time. The Board decided to consider this issue satisfied in terms of the change of use to rent U-haul trucks and trailers.
Mr. Houseworth completed the review of the checklist and stated that it is essentially complete. Mr. Sawich moved to accept the application of James Tyler of Tyler’s Small Engine, File # 2006-16PB for a Change of Use to rent U-haul trucks and trailers on property located at 20 Concord Street, Antrim, NH 03440, Tax Map 1C, Lot 166 located in the Village Business District. Mr. Robblee seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Genest – aye, Mr. Rowehl – aye, Mr. Sawich – aye, Ms. Wasserloos - aye, Mr. Robblee – aye, Ms. Allen – aye.
The application of James Tyler of Tyler’s Small Engine for a Change of Use to rent U-haul trucks and trailers has been accepted by the Board.
Chairman Snow closed the public meeting and opened the public hearing. Chairman Snow asked if any abutters are present that would like to speak for the proposed activity, no one answered. Chairman Snow asked if any abutters are present that would like to speak against the proposed activity. Mr. Vasques stated that for the record he received a telephone message this morning from Ms. Pam Caswell regarding her concerns with the proposed project. She stated in the phone message that she will be out of town on September 7, 2006, will not be able to attend the public hearing, and asked Mr. Vasques to raise her concerns during the hearing for her. Mr. Vasques typed up her five (5) concerns regarding the proposed activity into a memo and provided it to the Board members in their packets. Mr. Vasques read aloud her five
(5) questions, to which Mr. Tyler provided answers, and they are as follows:
1. She asks if the proposed activity will generate additional employment opportunities in Antrim. Mr. Tyler responded that he does not foresee it.
2. She is concerned that granting Mr. Tyler’s request could set a precedent for establishing rental facilities such as Hertz, Enterprise, and/ or other Rental Car Agencies in addition to other heavy duty equipment, lawn equipment, construction equipment such as back hoes, etc. in the Village Business District. The Board responded that it is a case by case basis and if the ZBA grants the variance, they can’t do anything about it.
3. She is concerned about the number of vehicles Mr. Tyler has on his property and asked if they are all registered. Mr. Tyler stated that the vehicles are all registered.
4. She asks if any of the vehicles currently on the property will be removed to make room for the new U-haul trucks and trailers or will the trucks be in addition to those vehicles already there on the site. Mr. Tyler stated that a dump truck and bulldozer are on site for the proposed work and will be moved off site once the proposed activity has been completed. He added that they are tools of the trade.
5. She asks if there will be any additional lighting (ex. security purposes) which would be noticeable from her property and/ or shine light onto her backyard. Mr. Tyler stated that there will be no additional lighting.
Mr. Vasques stated that this was the only abutters’ letter or comments that the planning staff had received. Chairman Snow closed the public hearing and opened the public meeting for the board to deliberate on the application. Ms. Allen stated that she thinks the Board needs to conduct a site walk and would like to request that at the site walk that Mr. Tyler flag out or mark out the proposed new fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area for U-haul trucks and trailers. Chairman Snow asked Ms. Allen what her concern is and reason to want to conduct a site walk. Ms. Allen stated that she wants to see where the new parking area will be, wants to see how this is going to work, what the slope of the area is, the distance to the wetland buffer zone and she explained that it has been the Board’s policy and
practice to do site walks on most proposed applications. She stated that this also gives the Board a chance to see the site and new concerns or questions may come up while conducting the site walk that the Board may want to address before granting final approval of the proposed activity.
Mr. Rowehl stated that this is not a permitted use in the Village Business District and that it was specifically removed from the permitted uses in this zoning district in 1993 by the Planning Board. He stated that at that time the Board decided that this permitted use did not agree with the Master Plan and wouldn’t help maintain a rural, small town atmosphere. He stated that he mentioned this at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting and he felt that they didn’t listen to his concern very diligently. He stated that now the Board is in a tough position because it has to keep this activity in line with the Master Plans’ objectives while also assuring that there is no undue hardship required by the Board on the applicant. Mr. Prokop explained that the Town is recently updating the Master Plan and
during recent public workshops regarding the Master Plan, some individuals have expressed a desire to see more business in the downtown area along with a mix of multiple uses.
After some discussion among the Board, they decided to conduct a site walk on September 12, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Mr. Snow continued the public meeting to September 12, 2006 at 5:30 PM at 20 Concord Street, Antrim, NH for the site walk and to 7:30 PM on September 21, 2006 to continue deliberation on the application.
Maharishi Conceptual Consultation: A group of individuals representing the Maharishi Enlightenment Center of Amherst and Global Country came before the Board for a conceptual consultation regarding a 457 acre parcel of land that they are proposing to develop into a Maharishi Vedic Medical College and Medical Center consisting of approximately six hundred (600) individuals. They desire to open a college to train healthcare professional in Vedic medicine. They propose a two (2) phased development strategy with up to twenty new buildings consisting of three main functions: 1) Medical College, 2) Holistic Healthcare Spa and Center, and 3) Housing for staff and residents. Phase one included constructing seven (7) 10,000 sq. ft. buildings on the property and considerable discussion centered around a potential
entrance to the property via River Road or Old North Branch Road off of Rt. 9.
Mr. Edwards moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Rowehl seconded the motion which unanimously passed. Mr. Edwards adjourned the meeting at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley J. Houseworth, Planning Technician
Antrim Planning Board
| 
