ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the September 21, 2006 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Mary Allen Fred Anderson Scott Burnside
Bob Edwards Bradley Houseworth Renee Rabideau Andrew Robblee Ed Rowehl Brian Sawich Paul Vasques Kathi Wasserloos
Members & Staff absent:
Mike Genest Alex Snow
Public Attendees:
Lepa Lin James Tyler
The members convened at 7:00 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 7:24 PM and asked the Planning Staff to go over some administrative items on the agenda before 7:30 PM.
Administrative/Approve Planning Board Minutes: Mr. Sawich made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 7, 2006 meeting as corrected which was seconded by Mr. Rowehl and unanimously passed.
Tyler, James of Tyler’s Small Engine File # 2006-16PB: Chairman Edwards recused
himself, appointed Vice Chairman Sawich as chairman pro tem for the public meeting, and appointed Ms. Rabideau to sit in place of Mr. Sawich. Chairman Sawich continued 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. Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Vasques to bring the Board up to speed on the present status of the application. Mr. Vasques explained that there was a site walk conducted on the property on September 12, 2006 at 5:30 PM and provided the Board with the meeting minutes from this site walk. Mr. Vasques stated that the bulk of the time during the site walk was spent establishing where the new rental trucks and trailers
parking area will be located on the property and he mentioned that the planning staff has placed a colored square on the applicant’s plan to show where the new parking area is proposed. Mr. Vasques provided the Board with the updated plans and explained that Mr. Houseworth had also updated the checklist based on the Board’s decisions from the previous Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Houseworth to review the checklist. Mr. Houseworth explained that when the Board reviewed the checklist at the last Board meeting, all of the items on the checklist were either deemed satisfied or not applicable, so essentially the checklist was complete. Mr. Houseworth stated that the reason for the site walk was to establish where the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet new gravel parking area is going to be and to address any new questions or concerns that may come up as a result of the site walk such as requiring a certain amount of vegetation buffer along the property line. Mr. Houseworth also provided to the Board the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment’s Notice of Decision with three conditions of approval from July 27, 2006, granting Mr. Tyler a variance to Article IV, Section B.1 of the
Antrim Zoning Ordinances to rent trucks and trailers in the Village Business District.
Chairman Sawich asked the Board to discuss amongst themselves important issues of the application or any other issues that came up during the site walk. Mr. Vasques added that there was some discussion at the site walk regarding the possibility of a new driveway being put in onto Elm Street and the Board was concerned with how this issue will be handled because it is a commercial activity establishing a new driveway onto a residential street. Mr. Vasques continued stating that he has spoken with the Town’s Road Agent, Bob Varnum, and Mr. Varnum stated that when it comes to granting a curb cut on a town road, he has two criteria that he uses: 1) adequate drainage, and 2) line of sight. Mr. Vasques stated that Mr. Varnum stated that there is nothing in the regulations that takes into consideration whether the curb cut
is going to be for residential or commercial use or the types of vehicles that will be using it. Mr. Vasques suggested to the Board that they may want to address this issue down the road in the driveway regulations. Chairman Sawich clarified the issue by asking Mr. Vasques if the Board is addressing the issue during this public meeting. Mr. Vasques stated no and that since it came up during the site walk he wanted to get an answer back to the Board. Chairman Sawich stated that this issue is something that may or may not come up in the future since it is dependent on Mr. Tyler and NH DES and told the Board that he doesn’t want to clutter this public meeting with future potential land uses, only what the applicant has currently proposed in his application to the Board.
Mr. Rowehl asked the Board if the new gravel parking area for trucks and trailers is fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet. Mr. Sawich replied yes. Mr. Rowehl stated that he thought the new proposed parking area was changed to fifty (50) feet by forty (40) feet. Ms. Allen agreed with Mr. Rowehl stating she thought the proposed parking area was changed to fifty (50) feet by forty (40) feet. Mr. Rowehl stated that he was going to suggest to the Board that the proposed parking area be reduced to fifty (50) feet by thirty (30) feet since a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area is more than an adequate area for parking of rental motor vehicles. Mr. Rowehl added that during the site walk he had spoken with Mr. Tyler, whom had mentioned to him, that the proposed parking area was fifty (50) feet by forty (40)
feet. Mr. Rowehl asked the Board if the proposed parking area had been delineated on the plan and stated that his understanding was that it would be put on the plan. Mr. Vasques replied that he may have confused the issue by putting a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet colored square on the plans to represent the proposed parking area. He stated that his understanding was that Mr. Tyler is willing to go to a fifty (50) feet by forty (40) feet proposed parking area but he would like to have a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area to park the rental trucks and trailers in. Mr. Vasques stated that this is the reason the planning staff put a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet colored square on the plans; to let the Board see what a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area will look like on the plans and make a determination on size and location of this proposed parking area. Mr. Vasques clarified by stating that the fifty (50) feet by forty (40)
feet proposed parking area only came up at the site walk and was a fall back position by Mr. Tyler, but he prefers a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area.
Mr. Rowehl also stated that his understanding is that the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet proposed parking area would extend ten (10) feet into the fifty foot front setback. Mr. Vasques stated that this is correct and this is shown on the plans, the front part of the parking area for the trucks and trailers is about ten (10) feet within the fifty (50) feet front setback. Mr. Houseworth explained that the colored square has been made to scale, 1” x 1” (50’ x 50’), and has been placed exactly where Mr. Tyler wants it, roughly thirty (30) feet off of the stone wall in the front yard and twenty six (26) feet from the existing driveway. Mr. Burnside asked Mr. Vasques if there is an ordinance that restricts parking areas from being within the setback areas. Mr. Vasques stated that there is one
stating that the parking area must be ten (10) feet from the property line, essentially a ten (10) feet setback from the property line. Chairman Sawich asked the Board that if the proposed parking area is fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet, does it encroach in anything he shouldn’t be encroaching on such as setbacks or wetlands. Mr. Vasques stated no, as it has been laid out on the plans, the parking area doesn’t encroach on the setback for a parking area nor does it encroach into the wetlands setback area. Ms. Rabideau stated that on the subdivision plans there is a note that states that the lot line is to be eliminated and asked Mr. Tyler if two lots have been annexed together and whether or not he has a deed for this. Mr. Tyler replied yes, that the two lots have been annexed together and he has a deed.
Chairman Sawich stated that he would like the Board to settle the issue of the size of the parking area right now, determine the dimension of it, and get a consensus from the Board. He asked if any of the Board members would like to speak to this issue. Ms. Allen stated that she would like to address the issue and mentioned that she felt it was very helpful for her to do the site walk on this application because it really helped her understand all of the issues by being there and seeing it firsthand. Ms. Allen continued stating that this proposed parking area for trucks and trailers is actually in front of another existing parking area, approximately twenty-six (26) feet, where cars are parked now. She stated that this property has plenty of parking already with a parking area in front of the building, a drive through
area, and a live parking area in front. She continued stating that these areas are obviously in use, and there are essentially three separate parking areas already. She summarized by stating that you do have a twenty-six (26) feet wide parking area in front of the proposed fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet new parking area, so you essentially have a seventy-six (76) foot wide parking area by fifty (50) feet across. Ms. Allen claims that she feels like this is a lot but she doesn’t have a problem with the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet. She stated that what does bother her is the temporary colored square that has been taped to the plan to represent the proposed parking area. She stated that what she thinks the Board really needs is the proposed parking area delineated on the plan so that the Board can be assured that the parking area will be located and constructed to specific dimensions that are precisely delineated on the plan. She stated
that her biggest concern is that if the property were sold tomorrow and someone else buys the property, they may think that they can put a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area anywhere on the property. She explained that she thinks it is really important to have something that the applicant builds to, a plan, that both the applicant and Board can not only approve but use for code enforcement purposes. She explained that it doesn’t have to be an expensive plan but some kind of map to scale delineating the parking area so the Board knows what it is approving. Ms. Allen also explained that she feels that the size of the parking area is really up to the applicant to decide whether he is asking for a parking area fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet or fifty (50) feet by forty (40) feet. Ms. Allen finished by stating that she wouldn’t mind if the parking area was reduced to fifty (50) feet by forty (40) feet given the fact that there is
twenty-six (26) more feet in front of it that is already an existing parking area.
Chairman Sawich asked Ms. Allen if there are two main issues she has problems with 1) the size of the parking area, and 2) the need for the parking area to be delineated on the plan. Ms. Allen replied yes. Chairman Sawich asked Ms. Allen if she is asking Mr. Tyler to change the size of the parking area, Ms. Allen replied that she would prefer for the parking area to be reduced but mentioned that she would not vote against the application if the applicant asked for a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area to park the rental trucks and trailers. Ms. Allen also stated that she really wants the parking area delineated on the plan and the Board should not be approving a plan with a colored squared taped on in a certain area on the plan. Mr. Vasques stated that the reason the planning staff used the colored square to
represent the proposed parking area was so that the Board could move the square around on the plan and decide where the most appropriate location would be. Mr. Vasques asked Ms. Allen if she would accept that once the size and location of the parking area is determined, that the planning staff draws it on the plans, which would be part of the file, and would be referenced in the minutes. Ms. Allen stated that this is really for the applicant to do, to delineate the parking area on the plan, so that the Board is approving something that is set in stone. She continued stating so that the Board and the applicant don’t have any question about where the parking area will be constructed and what the dimensions of it are.
Mr. Robblee asked the Board that isn’t the issue only the amount of area to be used for parking the rental trucks and trailers. He added that isn’t the issue the location where the vehicles will be parked and the size of that rental parking area. Mr. Vasques replied yes and stated that part of the concern was how many vehicles he will be allowed to have on his property. Mr. Vasques stated that based upon advice from Town Counsel it was decided that a better approach to limiting the number of vehicles is to limit the parking area for which these rental trucks and trailers can be parked. He stated in this way, Mr. Tyler can have any combination or variety of sizes of trucks and trailers as long as they fit within the proposed fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area. Mr. Burnside stated so
basically what the Board is saying is that Mr. Tyler can have as much parking as he wants by code but for the rental trucks and trailers all he is allowed is a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area. Mr. Vasques stated yes and Mr. Burnside replied that this is a non-issue.
Mr. Sawich asked the Board if anyone else has any more comments about the dimensions of the parking area. Mr. Rowehl stated that he still thinks the proposed parking area should be fifty (50) feet by forty (40) feet and should be located not in the setback area. Mr. Anderson stated that since the Board is debating the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet proposed parking area, how is the new parking area going to be delineated from the active parking area for the business. He stated that he doesn’t see any particular way that this new parking area will be identified differently from the rest of the parking area. Mr. Anderson asked the Board how the display parking area for the rental vehicles will be delineated differently from the rest of the parking area. Mr. Burnside replied that you have to be realistic
about this issue; the applicant is not going to have someone draw out a surveyed fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet square box on the ground and have citizens criticize him when a rental vehicle is parked over the line. Mr. Burnside stated that the way he sees it, the applicant is allowed twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet; so that he can be a little longer or a little narrower. Mr. Vasques added that the Board needs to keep in mind that the parking area needs to be outside of the buffer zone for the wetlands, Mr. Burnside agreed.
Chairman Sawich asked the Board if there are any other comments on the size of the proposed parking area for the rental vehicles. Mr. Anderson stated that he is fine with the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area. Chairman Sawich stated that what he would like to do is to get a consensus on where the various Board members stand regarding the dimensions of the proposed parking areas. Mr. Vasques suggested that the chairman poll the members by name or put a motion on the table and see if it gets seconded or voted down. Mr. Burnside asked Mr. Tyler if he prefers the fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area or the square footage (2,500 sq. ft.). Mr. Tyler replied that he doesn’t want to throw a monkey wrench in it but twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet is what it is. He stated that the odds
are that he’ll never use much more than thirty (30) feet by forty (40) feet to park the rental vehicles but he doesn’t want to limit himself. Mr. Tyler stated that he is just trying to make a buck here in town and stated that he thinks the Board is splitting hairs on this issue. Mr. Anderson replied that is why I would take the deference to ask for a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet area. Mr. Tyler stated that he is sure fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet is going to be plenty as Antrim will not be the U-haul capital of the state.
Chairman Sawich asked for a motion from the Board. Mr. Rowehl made a motion that the parking area be limited to two thousand (2,000) square feet and not be located in the setback area. Mr. Vasques stated that the motion failed because there was no second from the Board. Chairman Sawich asked the Board for a motion that the parking area be restricted to twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet. Ms. Allen stated that she would not make that motion because she thinks the Board still needs a plan with the proposed parking area delineated on it in order to protect the applicant, the Town, the Board, and the ZBA. She stated she doesn’t have a problem with the size of the parking area but she thinks the Board needs a plan if they are going to be making a motion. Chairman Sawich stated that that is the
question he would like to address next, after the Board agrees on the size of the parking area; then the Board can decide on how to require it on the plans. Mr. Burnside made a motion to accept the parking area as fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet or twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet, which was seconded by Mr. Robblee. Mr. Rowehl was the only Board member whom opposed the motion, so the motion was passed.
Chairman Sawich asked the Board to address the next issue regarding whether the parking dimensions should be put on the plans or put in the record. Mr. Burnside stated that he is on the opposite side as Ms. Allen because he doesn’t see this as an application for a parking lot, the Board is only saying the applicant is allowed so much for a display area and a parking lot. Mr. Robblee explained that the Board has already limited the scope and size of the activity. He stated that it doesn’t really matter where Mr. Tyler parks the vehicles on his property as long as it falls within the regulations. Mr. Burnside agreed, stating that this is how he interprets this application; Mr. Tyler is expanding the parking lot but this application is about a display area for rental trucks and trailers. Chairman Sawich
asked for any other comments from the Board.
Ms. Allen agreed that this is an application for a display area for rental trucks and trailers, but this is a very visible property as you enter the town from the south along Rt. 202. She stated that this is also not a typical lot, it has a lot of areas of wetlands, and buffers, and the Board needs to decide and nail down exactly where the parking area should be. Furthermore, Ms. Allen stated that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has placed conditions on their notice of decision for Mr. Tyler’s variance for a reason and it is up to the Board to address those conditions. Mr. Robblee stated that he feels that the Board has addressed the three conditions on the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s Notice of Decision. Ms. Allen replied, no, not yet. Chairman Sawich asked Ms. Allen if she has a specific suggestion
regarding a potential condition placed on the approval of this application. Ms. Allen stated that she wants Mr. Tyler to provide to the Board a sketch, that then becomes part of the record, of where he proposes this new parking area to be on his property and the understanding that is held by the minutes is that the Board doesn’t have a problem with the proposed parking area being approximately thirty (30) feet back from the front property line and having dimensions that were just passed by the Board: twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet or fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet.
Mr. Vasques stated that it seems the Board has essentially created a dilemma with the dimensions of the proposed parking area. Mr. Vasques stated that since the proposed parking area can be either twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet or fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet, it will be difficult for the applicant to put the location on the plan when the proposed parking area could have a different shape and still be within twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet. Ms. Wasserloos replied except for the fact that when the Board did the site walk and Mr. Tyler mentioned the fifty (50) feet by forty (40) feet dimensions, he mentioned them as the desired location for the trucks to be parked and be displayed. Ms. Wasserloos asked if the Board is not protected by the comments he made at the site walk as recorded in the site walk
meeting minutes. Mr. Vasques replied that by the last motion the Board made, the proposed parking area can also be twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet. Ms. Allen stated that this may solve it but if Mr. Tyler comes in with a sketch that delineates the size and location of the proposed parking area, then the Board can make the decision on the application based on a plan.
Mr. Vasques stated that instead of delaying the application to another public meeting two weeks later to have the applicant provide a sketch, would the Board accept the planning staff drawing in the proposed parking area to scale on the plan as specified by the site walk meeting minutes of the proposed parking area having dimensions of fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet and being twenty six (26) feet from the edge of the driveway, extending fifty (50) feet, and being thirty (30) feet from the front property line. Mr. Vasques added that of course it is up to the Board to decide if they want to continue the public meeting but this is a way to address Ms. Allen’s concern of having the plan drawn to scale on the plan. Chairman Sawich asked the Board if there are anymore comments regarding Ms. Allen’s recommendation that
Mr. Tyler provide a sketch to specify the location of the proposed parking area. No one answered. Chairman Sawich asked the Board if anyone wants to make a motion.
Mr. Vasques suggested the following motion: that Mr. Tyler be granted a fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area staring twenty six (26) feet off the edge of the driveway and thirty (30) feet back from the front property line and the said parking area be drawn on the subdivision plan. Mr. Vasques stated that he is trying to establish the parking area dimensions, get rid of the twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet, and get it on the subdivision drawing to finally pin it down on the plan.
Mr. Burnside made a motion to alter and remove the twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet and leave the proposed parking area dimensions at fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet. Mr. Robblee seconded the motion, which passed. Mr. Rowehl opposed the motion but all other Board members approved the motion. Chairman Sawich stated that the Board has essentially annulled the previous motion regarding the dimensions of the parking area. Mr. Burnside made a motion that the parking area dimensions be fifty (50) feet by fifty (50) feet parking area starting twenty six (26) feet off the edge of the driveway and thirty (30) feet back from the front property line as shown on the drawing entitled “Subdivision & Lot Line Adjustment Plan, Land of James & Rosemary Tyler dated April 27, 2004 with revisions through July 19,
2004.” Mr. Robblee seconded the motion, which unanimously passed.
Chairman Sawich asked the Board if they have any other questions, concerns, or issues they would like to address about this application. Ms. Wasserloos stated that in regards to the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s notice of decision, one of the conditions is that the applicant will provide whatever buffering that may be required by the Planning Board during their site plan review. Ms. Wasserloos stated that she thinks the Board needs to make some kind of determination about what the Board is going to require for buffering. Ms. Wasserloos added that she sees buffering as buffering along the back property line near the two back lots and she mentioned that there was some discussion at the site walk of some potential vegetation being planted. Mr. Tyler replied that if that is what the people think they want, then okay. He stated that the abutters that are closest to his property are no problem but the upper house residents seem to think that they want a hundred foot fence so they
can’t see. Ms. Wasserloos replied that she meant a vegetated buffer; Mr. Tyler replied that he thinks there is already a vegetated buffer there.
Chairman Sawich stated that the subject in front of the Board now is buffering and asked for the Board’s comments on the subject. Mr. Burnside stated that the houses on Elm Street were constructed after Mr. Tyler had already established his business and he doesn’t see the trucks and trailers really changing the view from what is already there. He stated that he thinks it is the property owners that bought those houses, after the facts, responsibility to install their own buffering and not be the responsibility of Mr. Tyler. Ms. Rabideau read aloud to the Board an Antrim zoning ordinance for the Village Business District titled, “Special Setback (Buffer Strip) Provisions,” which reads as follows: “An establishment engaged in commercial activity shall maintain as green space fifty percent (50%)
of the front, side, and rear yard setback areas. The front yard setback shall be landscaped and the side and back yard setbacks shall be maintained to provide a reasonable measure of protection to the adjacent properties as determined by a Site Plan Review.” Ms. Wasserloos stated that Mr. Tyler’s property is in a very luxurious position because it is one of the first commercial establishments one sees when coming into town and it really sets a tone for people driving into town. Ms. Wasserloos stated that she really likes what Mr. Tyler has done to the front slope of the lot near the left hand side of the driveway, although it’s not exactly a vegetated buffer, but it certainly is an attempt to make the entrance of the property attractive. Ms. Wasserloos stated that she heard Mr. Tyler wanted to plant some grass up front but encourages Mr. Tyler to add a little more vegetation to the front like shrubs and such things that wouldn’t block
the view of the trucks and trailers but also provide more vegetation.
Mr. Vasques stated that Ms. Wasserloos has a good point for the front yard area but it would seem that if there is any other concern for buffering, it is to the houses bordering the back of the lot. Mr. Vasques stated that based on the zoning ordinance Ms. Rabideau read aloud, the side and rear setback areas are twenty (20) feet in this zoning district. Mr. Vasques asked the Board if they want to impose a ‘no cut’ zone ten (10) feet off of the property line on the west and north property lines to help maintain as green space 50% of the rear yard setback area. Mr. Burnside stated that any natural wooded area is considered green space. Mr. Vasques stated that he thinks Mr. Tyler probably doesn’t need the ten (10) feet on his back property line, and agrees not to cut it, then it won’t be long
before the trees grow up. Mr. Houseworth stated that it is up to the Board to determine what a ‘reasonable measure of protection to the adjacent properties’ is. Mr. Burnside that the Board needs to ask Mr. Tyler what he is agreeable to in terms of amount of buffering. Mr. Tyler agreed stating that he would leave the natural buffer zone along the northwest property lines and that is why he left some trees along Elm Street in the first place. After some discussion, the Board decided to require the ten (10) foot wide ‘no cut’ buffer along the abutting property lines at the back of the property. Mr. Vasques reiterated the buffer proposal to read as follows: a ‘no cut’ buffer zone, ten (10) feet in width, will be maintained along the abutting property lines with parcels 1C-167 and 1C-167-1. Chairman Sawich asked if this ‘no cut’ buffer would be a condition of approval, Mr. Vasques replied yes.
Chairman Sawich asked the Board if they have any other comments or concerns about the buffering issue. No one answered. Chairman Sawich asked the Board if they have any other comments or concerns about this application. Mr. Vasques suggested to the Board that they include a condition that stipulates that the applicant will comply with all conditions imposed by the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment as noted in their decision of July 27, 2006. Chairman Sawich reviewed and read aloud the conditions imposed by the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment as noted in their decision of July 27, 2006.
Chairman Sawich asked the Board if they have any other comments or concerns about this application. No one answered. Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Vasques to read aloud the suggested motion to approve the application with the previously discussed conditions. Mr. Vasques read them aloud.
Mr. Burnside moved to approve the application of James Tyler of Tyler’s Small Engine, File # 2006-16PB for a Change of Use to rent trucks and trailers on property located at 20 Concord Street, Antrim, NH 03440, Tax Map 1C, Lot 166 located in the Village Business District. The following conditions apply to this approval:
Planning Board requirements, commitments and agreements made by the applicant and/or his agent as recorded in the meeting minutes dated September 7, 2006 and subsequent meetings as they pertain to this application are a conditional part of this approval.
The size (50’ x 50’) and location of the parking area will be as shown on the drawing entitled “Subdivision & Lot Line Adjustment Plan, Land of James & Rosemary Tyler dated April 27, 2004 with revisions through July 19, 2004.
A “no cut” buffer zone, ten feet in width will be maintained along the abutting property lines with parcels 1C-167 and 1C-167-1.
The applicant will comply will all conditions imposed by the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment as noted in their decision of July 27, 2006.”
Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Rowehl – nay, Mr. Anderson – aye, Ms. Burnside - aye, Mr. Robblee – aye, Ms. Rabideau – aye.
The application of James Tyler of Tyler’s Small Engine for a Change of Use to rent trucks and trailers has been conditional approved by the Board.
Cloud Court Subdivision – Culvert Redesign: Mr. Edwards joined the Board and resumed his role as Chairman. Mr. Vasques advised the Board that he has received a letter from the Town Engineer, Peter Pitsas of Underwood Engineers, Inc., regarding the receipt of a revised set of drawings for the revised culvert at the beginning of the road for the Cloud Court Subdivision (Tax Map 8A, Lot 3-1) off of Clinton Road. Mr. Vasques explained that the revisions to the culvert design include the change of the culvert material from a circular reinforced concrete pipe to a reinforced concrete box culvert with wing-walls. Mr. Vasques stated that the revision is being proposed to address NH DES’ concern regarding the natural stream bed and flow width. He stated that Peter Pitsas mentioned
in the letter that the revised culvert design has been discussed with Moser Engineering on August 15, 2006 and that if this revised culvert design is approved by NH DES then they concur with the revision. Ms. Rabideau stated that the surveyor has received the NH DES approval and she has recently updated the plans, so the Town should be getting a revised set of plans soon.
Homes at High Hills – Drainage Discrepancies and Modifications: Mr. Vasques advised the Board about a letter that was sent from the Town Engineer, Peter Pitsas of Underwood Engineers, Inc., to Mr. Tom Thibeault of T.R. Thibeault & Sons Construction, regarding drainage concerns and groundwater seeping out of the up-gradient side of Green Ridge Road and along the end of improvements on Ashley Road, which may cause detrimental consequences to the road during construction and/ or in the future. Mr. Vasques explained that the letter stated that the drainage issues were noticed during a site walk that was conducted by the Town on Engineer on September 8, 2006 at the Homes at High Hills Subdivision (Tax Map 7, Lots 19 and 20) off of Ashley Road. In the letter, Peter Pitsas suggested two possible solutions
to the drainage issues: 1) to install a new under drain or 2) deepen the roadside swale. Peter Pitsas asked for a written recommendation from the design engineer so that the issue is addressed prior to approving the subbase and asked for a response to his previously proposed drainage modifications to the catch basin near Sta. 2+00 and the cross culverts on Green Ridge Road.
Forristall – Code Violation: Mr. Vasques advised the Board of a letter, dated September 13, 2006, that was sent from the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer, Jeff Parsons, to Mr. William R. Forristall regarding numerous code violations that were observed on September 7, 2006 during a recent inspection of the property located at 45 West Street (Tax Map 1C, Lot 001). Mr. Parsons highlighted in his letter the following code violations: 1) Article XIV, F, 4- Supplemental Regulations of the Town of Antrim Zoning Ordinances- “No lot or premises shall be used as a storage area for junk automobiles, appliances, or the storage or collection of any other miscellaneous items…,” 2) RSA 236:92, prohibiting the storage of more than one unregistered and un-inspected motor vehicle, and 3) Article XIV, L,
6- Supplemental Regulations of the Town of Antrim Zoning Ordinances- “No major recreational equipment shall be stored outdoors on residential premises unless it is in condition for safe and effective performance of the function for which it is intended…”
Mr. Parsons listed three actions that need to be completed by Mr. Forristall in order to be in compliance with the previously mentioned ordinances and state regulations: 1) Remove those vehicles that are unregistered and un-inspected from the property, or have them registered and inspected, 2) Remove the “miscellaneous materials,” auto frame, tires, etc., or find appropriate storage for the same, and 3) Remove the rafters from atop the camping trailer, and site it and the plastic storage shed on the lot in such a manner that they are compliant with zoning set back requirements. Mr. Parsons stated in the letter that these issues must be addressed by Monday, October 2, 2006 or failure to comply will result in this case being transferred to the Regional Prosecutor and complaints will be filed against Mr. Forristall in
Hillsborough Court, and fines may be imposed.
Correspondence - 2006 NH OEP Fall Planning and Zoning Conference: Mr. Vasques 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. Mr. Vasques provided the Board with the conference application materials and recommended to the Board that they register for the conference well ahead of the registration deadline so that the members can choose what sessions they would like to do. Mr. Vasques advised the Board that the Town has funds available to pay for the application costs for the Board members.
Correspondence - Town of Surry – Cell Tower Hearing 9-25-06: Mr. Vasques advised the Board of a notice of public hearing from the Town of Surry Planning Board regarding a request by the Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for the proposed construction of a personal wireless services facility on property located at 75 Valley View Drive (Tax Map 5B, Lot 78) in Surry, New Hampshire. Mr. Vasques advised the Board that the public hearing will be held on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 8 PM and that pursuant to RSA 12-K:7, New Hampshire municipalities, and their residents, within the 20 mile radius of the proposed personal wireless services facility can comment at any public hearing related to this application.
Master Plan: Mr. Houseworth advised the Board that the next Master Plan meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 6:30 PM in the Antrim Town Hall. Mr. Vasques added that the next Route 9 Study Committee Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 6:30 PM in the Antrim Town Hall. Mr. Sawich explained that at the previous Route 9 Study Committee meeting, the group sketched out an outline for the Master Plan chapter titled, “Future Land Use,” and Mr. Sawich is working on the chapter now. He also stated that there are some priorities in the chapter that will need to be addressed by the Planning Board in the future and the next step for the Master Plan is for Ms. Taylor to compile all of the various chapters into a comprehensive draft so that the various committees and boards
can review and edit the draft.
Capital Improvement Plan (Status): Mr. Vasques advised the Board that Mr. Prokop has received a 90-day demo for a software program that is designed for capital improvement planning. He stated that the planning staff will begin soon testing out the program to see if the Town wants to purchase the program. Mr. Vasques explained that it is basically a Microsoft Access database that outputs reports and graphs.
Regulations - Should the property owner or the tenant apply for a site plan review?:
Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a memo regarding who should apply to the Planning Board for a site plan review, the tenant or the property owner? Mr. Vasques stated that he has discussed this issue with Town Counsel and their opinion is that the application should be filed by the person who would be conducting the business, i.e. the renter, tenant, or lessee. Mr. Vasques stated that Town Counsel recommended that the Board require documentation from the property owner that he/she approves of the proposed use of the property. Mr. Vasques continued stating that Town Counsel contends that any changes to the property that may be required by the Board should be made as conditions of approval. It would then be up to the applicant to negotiate these changes with the property owner in his/her lease or rental agreement and
therefore should the applicant not be able to satisfy these conditions, the approval of the application becomes null or void.
Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Vasques if this needs to be stipulated in the Town regulations or part of the application, Mr. Vasques stated yes and that the planning staff will be working this into the subdivision and site plan review regulations and the application packets. Mr. Edwards asked the Board if they want to share the notice of decision with the property owner and the tenant. After some discussion it was decided that the Board will just work with the applicant (tenant) on this issues and only release information and notices of decisions to the property owners if they request it as part of the approval process.
Ordinance & Regulations – Soliciting comments from abutters: Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a memo regarding the proper procedure to be followed when hold a public meeting and hearing and when additional comments can be taken from abutters or interested parties. Mr. Vasques stated that he had a discussion with Town Counsel and they laid out the following procedure:
1. The public meeting is opened.
2. The applicant makes his presentation.
3. The board decides to accept or reject the application
4. The public hearing is opened
5. Abutters and other interested comments are solicited.
6. The public hearing is closed, the session reverts to a public meeting and the board goes into deliberation.
7. If the decision is not made to approve the application, the public meeting is continued to a future time and date.
8. At the continued public meeting, the board continues its deliberation but does not solicit additional input from abutters or other interested parties.
Mr. Vasques stated that town counsel does advise that if an abutter or interested party asks to speak, they may be allowed to do so at the discretion of the board (chairman). He emphasizes that the chairman should limit such comments to matters that have not been previously discussed. Mr. Vasques also advised the Board that the planning staff will be placing the following comment in all future public notices in order to help the public better understand the procedural process:
“Upon a finding by the Board, that the application meets the submission requirements of the Antrim Subdivision Regulations, the Board will vote to accept the application as complete, and a public hearing on the merits of the proposal will immediately follow. Should a decision not be reached on the application it will stay on the Planning Board agenda until it is either approved or disapproved. Please be advised that, as an abutter, your right to testify is restricted to the public hearing. In the case of a public meeting, as opposed to a public hearing, you are allowed by right to be notified and be present, but you do not have the right to offer testimony except at the Planning Board's discretion.”
Ms. Allen raised a concern regarding the above statement, particularly the statement, “…the Board will vote to accept the application as complete.” Ms. Allen asked the Board if the word the planning staff should be using is ‘complete’ or ‘sufficient to be heard’ or something along that line. Ms. Allen explained that past applicants and public citizens have been getting confused because of the terminology ‘complete,’ and have been wondering how we can accept an ‘application as complete’ if not all items on the checklist are satisfied. After further discussion, the Board decided to strike the words, ‘as complete,’ from the above highlighted comment.
Ordinance & Regulations – When is a “Change of Use” applicable?: Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a memo regarding when a Change of Use is applicable under the existing zoning ordinances, which have been reviewed and concurred with by town counsel. Mr. Vasques explained that a “Change of Use” comes into play when you have an EXISTING establishment or enterprise and the services provided by that facility meet the following definition of a change of use as it exists in the zoning ordinance:
“CHANGE OF USE: A change of use of property occurs when the commercial or domestic activity to be conducted on a property differs significantly from that which is the primary activity currently being conducted on the property. Such a change of use requires a site plan review by the Planning Board.”
Mr. Vasques sited an example that a change of use is appropriate for Tyler’s Small Engine but not necessarily for the new bakery or chiropractic office that are going into the old mill building because there is currently nothing being conducted there.
Mr. Vasques explained that any NEW activity which meets the following definition in the ordinance for a commercial activity MUST come before the board for a site plan review:
“COMMERCIAL: Engaging in a business, enterprise or other undertaking for profit or non-profit. (Requires Site Plan Approval – Adopted March 13, 1990)”
Mr. Vasques explained that the definitions of a major or minor site plan review in the ‘Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations,’ describe when a major or a minor site plan review is required. Mr. Vasques also stated that Matt Taylor, Hillsboro Town Planner, provided him with a copy of their ‘Exemption for a Site Plan Review,’ which Mr. Vasques provided to the Board. Mr. Vasques explained that essentially this exemption is similar to what the Board has been doing informally but this is a formal procedure. Mr. Vasques explained the procedure for the, ‘Exemption for a Site Plan Review’: 1) the applicant file’s an application, 2) there are no fees, advertising, or notices put into the newspaper, 3) abutters are not notified, 4) it goes on the agenda for the Planning Board,
and 5) the planning board approves or disapproves the exemption at a public meeting. Mr. Vasques stated it is a good way to set up official guidelines for permitting an exemption to a site plan review. Mr. Houseworth stated that the only thing he feels uncomfortable with about this exemption is that the abutters are not notified and there is no public forum for them to speak and voice their opinion to the Board. Mr. Vasques suggested to the Board that unless they change the existing regulations, the Board has to follow the current regulations.
After a thorough discussion regarding the necessity of a change of use and whether or not the Town should require that all commercial activities need a site plan review, it was decided that the Board members will take some time individually over the next week or two to review the current procedures for change of use and site plan review and make some recommendations to the Board. Mr. Edwards suggested to the Board that members be prepared to take a position on this issue at the next Board meeting. Mr. Houseworth agreed.
Ordinance & Regulations – Home Occupation vs. Home Based Businesses: Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a memo regarding the potential revision of the zoning ordinances for home occupation and home based business. Mr. Vasques explained that the old definition in the past ‘Town of Antrim Zoning Ordinances’ had lumped home occupation and home based business under the same definition. It read as follows:
HOME OCCUPATION OR HOME BASED BUSINESS: Any use which is customarily or may properly be carried on entirely within a dwelling or other structure accessory to the dwelling by the resident thereof. (Adopted March 10, 1998) (Deleted March 10, 2005)
Mr. Vasques explained that in 2005 the planning board felt that this definition did not cover business such as plumbers, electricians and the like. The following changes were proposed on the ballot and passed.
HOME OCCUPATION: Any commercial activity carried on entirely within a dwelling or other structure accessory to the dwelling by the resident thereof. (Adopted March 10, 2005)
HOME BASED BUSINESS: Any commercial business that has its principal office on the property as well as provisions for the storage of materials, vehicles and equipment; however, performs the services provided off site and is owned and operated by the resident thereof. (Adopted March 10, 2005)
Mr. Houseworth stated that the problem was that in 2005 the two terms had been split by definition but were still lumped together as one under Article XIV Supplemental Regulations, Section P, of the ‘Town of Antrim Zoning Ordinances.’ Mr. Houseworth stated that therefore it is up to the Board to decide which supplemental regulations should apply for home occupation and which should apply for home based occupation. Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a spreadsheet of these supplemental regulations and reminded the Board that they must consider them when granting a home occupation or home based business. Mr. Vasques also suggested that the Board members should reconsider these supplemental regulations in light of the new definitions and the reality of the types of businesses being conducted. After some
discussion, it was decided that the Board members would review the spreadsheets and supplemental regulations and get back with some recommendations to the Board.
Planning Board Assistance Program: Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a summary from Southwest Region Planning Commission regarding a description of services provided under the Planning Commission’s Planning Board Assistance (PBA) program. Mr. Vasques asked the Board if they think this program has been helpful and worth the money to have these additional services, input, and personnel. After some discussion among the Board members regarding the pros and cons of this program, the Board decided to address this issue later on when the Board reviews the Planning Staff’s Budget for the next fiscal year.
Volunteer Assistance from a New Citizen: Mr. Sawich asked Ms. Lepa Lin to introduce herself to the Board, explain her background, and describe what services she could provide to the Town. Ms. Lin stated that she came to Antrim from California and has an extensive background in planning. She mentioned that she had contacted Mr. Sawich a few weeks ago and had offered her services to the Town, specifically to help work on updating the Master Plan. Ms. Lin offered her services and expertise for free to the Town to help with the Master Plan but stated that she needs a couple of weeks notice ahead of time before she can commit to anything. Ms. Lin stated that if the Town wants her services, Mr. Sawich knows how to contact her.
Homes at High Hills - Road Problems: Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a copy of the project meeting minutes that Mr. Peter Pitsas had prepared from the emergency site walk meeting that was conducted on September 20, 2006 at 5:30 pm at the Homes at High Hills Subdivision (Tax Map 7, Lot 20) off of Ashley Road in Antrim, NH. After a thorough discussion among the Board members it was decided that if the applicant agrees to abide by the Town Engineers suggestions and changes to the project as reflected in the project meeting minutes, than the planning staff can accept the changes and the project can go forward. If the applicant and Town Engineer cannot come to an agreement than the matter will be placed in front of the Planning Board.
Administrative/Approve Planning Board Minutes: The Board reviewed the September 12, 2006 Planning Board Site Walk Meeting Minutes and made some corrections. Mr. Sawich made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2006 site walk meeting at Tyler’s Small Engine on Concord Street as corrected which was seconded by Ms. Allen and unanimously passed.
Mr. Edwards moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Sawich seconded the motion which unanimously passed. Mr. Edwards adjourned the meeting at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley J. Houseworth, Planning Technician
Antrim Planning Board
| 
