 |
ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
DRAFT
Minutes of the February 1, 2007 Board Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Mary Allen Fred Anderson Bob Edwards Bradley Houseworth Renee Rabideau PersonNameAndrew Robblee Ed Rowehl
PersonNamePaul Vasques Kathi Wasserloos
Members and Staff Absent:
Scott Burnside Mike Genest Joseph Koziell Brian Sawich Alex Snow
Public Attendees:
Wesley Enman
Chairman Edwards opened the public meeting at 7:17 PM by introducing himself, welcoming everyone for coming, and asking the members and staff to introduce themselves. He appointed Ms. Allen to sit in for the absent Mr. Burnside and Ms. Rabideau to sit in for the absent Mr. Sawich.
Approval of Planning Board Meeting Minutes: Mr. Robblee moved to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2007 meeting as corrected, which was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously passed.
Town Counsel’s Opinion – Effective Dates for Amended Ordinances and Regulations: Mr. Vasques advised the Board of Town Counsel’s opinion regarding when new amendments/ changes to ordinances and regulations officially become effective and can be implemented. He explained that changes to ordinances become effective as of the time of posting to the newspaper, as long as it is within ninety (90) days of the annual ballot vote. In this case, the proposed ordinance changes for this year remain in effect until March 13, 2007 pending the results of the ballot vote. He stated that any application submitted after the posting of the ordinance changes to the newspaper must be administered and reviewed for compliance with the new ordinance language. Mr. Vasques stated that changes to
regulations become effective when they are officially adopted by the Planning Board via a motion, and can be adopted anytime throughout the year by the Board. He explained that Town Counsel’s opinion regarding Redneck’s Bar and Grill is that because the Board agreed to allow their opening subject to approval by the fire chief, and this approval was done prior to the posting of the new ordinances requiring a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the Town cannot require that Redneck’s Bar and Grill obtain such a certificate as required by the new definition of commercial. Mr. Vasques added that Town Counsel deemed that Redneck’s Bar and Grill does not constitute a change of use and therefore is not subject to a site plan review either.
Redneck’s Status: Mr. Vasques advised the Board of a letter, dated January 29, 2007, he sent to Mr. Scott Wheeler, owner of Redneck’s Bar and Grill, regarding the need to apply to the Board for a site plan review and/or a certificate of use and occupancy. He explained that based upon a review by Town Counsel on the matter it was deemed that Mr. Wheeler does not need to apply for a site plan review because the proposed activity is similar to the previous activity and does not constitute a ‘Change of Use.’ Furthermore, he stated that Mr. Wheeler is not required to obtain a certificate of use and occupancy because the requirement for such was not enacted until after Mr. Wheeler had commenced his activity. Mr. Vasques explained to the Board that Mr. Wheeler must comply with any and
all requirements of the Antrim Fire Chief regarding life and safety issues in order to continue to operate beyond the temporary Permit to Operate a Place of Assembly deadline of March 26, 2007.
McClarty – Code Violation: Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a copy of a letter, dated January 22, 2007, sent from Mr. Jeff Parsons, Antrim Code Enforcement Official, to Mr. Brian McClarty, regarding a code violation on his property (Tax Map 9, placeLot 5) at addressStreet103 Salmon Brook Road in the northwestern area of Antrim. Mr. Vasques explained that Mr. Parsons made it clear in the letter that: 1. Mr. McClarty is in violation of Article XIV, Section F.4., regarding the establishment of an illegal junk yard; 2. McClarty has until Tuesday, February 6, 2007 to correct the problem; and 3. if no action has been taken, the case will be transferred to the Regional Prosecutor and complaints will be filed in the Hillsborough District Court.
Howard – Code Violation: Mr. Vasques provided the Board with a copy of a letter, dated January 23, 2007, sent from Mr. Jeff Parsons to Mr. Jeffrey Howard, regarding a code violation on his property (Tax Map 1A, placeLot 59) at addressStreet5 Bryers Lane in Antrim. Mr. Vasques explained that Mr. Parsons made it clear in the letter that: 1. Mr. Howard is in violation of Article XIV, Section F.4., regarding the establishment of an illegal junk yard; 2. Mr. Howard has until Wednesday, February 7, 2007 to correct the problem; and 3. if no action has been taken, the case will be transferred to the Regional Prosecutor and complaints will be filed in the Hillsborough District Court.
NH OEP News – 14th Annual Spring Planning and Zoning Conference: Mr. Vasques advised the Board that the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (NH OEP) is holding another planning and zoning conference in the spring of 2007 on Saturday, April 28, 2007 at the placePlaceTypeCenter of PlaceNameNH, Radisson Hotel, in placeCityManchester, StateNH. He stated that the registration information will be available at NH OEP’s website (www.nh.gov/oep) on February 23, 2007.
Southwest Region Planning Commission’s Winter Dinner Meeting: Mr. Vasques advised the Board that the Southwest Region Planning Commission is holding its Winter Dinner Meeting at the Keene Country Club in placeCityKeene, StateNH on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 6:00 PM. He asked that any members interested in attending this event please contact him prior to Friday, February 9 so that the Planning Staff can let SWRPC know the number of participants attending from the Town of placeCityAntrim. He stated that the cost is twenty ($20) dollars per person.
Ordinances & Regs – Certificate of Use & Occupancy Definition, Ordinance, & Form: Mr. Houseworth provided the members with a revised draft version of the recently created ‘Certificate of Use and Occupancy’ form, a revised definition for ‘Certificate of Use and Occupancy’ (found in Article III – Definitions of the zoning ordinances), and a revised draft of Article XVIII – Administration and Enforcement of the zoning ordinances for their review and comment. He explained to the Board that he had made all of their suggested changes from the previous meeting to the documents and asked if they would like to see any other additional changes or if they were ready to make a motion to adopt the proposed amendments. A few minor changes to the documents were suggested
by the members and Mr. Houseworth stated he would make the necessary changes. Mr. Robblee made a motion to adopt the proposed ordinance changes regarding the Certificate of Use and Occupancy as outlined in a memo to the Board from Bradley Houseworth and dated January 16, 2007, as presented, amended, and corrected on January 18 and February 1, 2007 (A copy of this memo is attached to the minutes). Mr. Anderson seconded the motion which unanimously passed.
Ordinances & Regs – Home Based Business Permit Form: Mr. Houseworth provided the members with a revised draft version of the recently created ‘Home Based Business Permit’ form for their review and comment. He explained to the Board that he had made all of their suggested changes from the previous meeting to the documents and asked if they would like to see any other additional changes or if they were ready to make a motion to adopt the Home Based Business form as presented and corrected. A few minor changes to the documents were suggested by the members and Mr. Houseworth stated he would make the changes. The Board approved of the Home Based Business form as presented and corrected.
Ordinance & Regs – Cluster Housing Tract Minimum Frontage Requirement: Mr. Houseworth provided the Board with a memo proposing to delete the Cluster Housing minimum tract frontage requirement found in Section O.3.a – Regulations and Standards for Cluster Housing Developments – Minimum Tract Area and Tract Frontage, of Article XIV – Supplemental Regulations of the Town of Antrim Zoning Ordinances. He explained that there are two main reasons he is proposing to delete this requirement: 1) Conventional Subdivisions have no such requirement and have been approved in preexisting back lots with a minimum tract frontage on a Class V road of only fifty (50) feet, and 2) the requirement seems to be in direct contrast with the purposes section of the same ordinance (Section O.1 of Article XIV),
such as “To enable flexibility in layout of residential developments,” and “To provide for the most appropriate and efficient use of buildable land in harmony with the natural terrain.” Mr. Houseworth explained that after an e-mail correspondence with Ms. Rabideau, he has amended his original proposal and suggests that the Cluster Housing minimum tract frontage requirement not be deleted but be reduced to either fifty (50), seventy (75), or one hundred (100) feet. Ms. Rabideau explained that four nearby towns (placeCityBennington, Francestown, placeCityGreenfield, and Hillsborough) all have some sort of minimum cluster housing tract frontage requirement ranging from fifty (50) feet to two hundred (200) feet. He suggested that whatever the Board determines to be an adequate minimum road frontage requirement for back lots, also be adopted for the Cluster Housing minimum tract frontage requirement, in order to have a level playing field for
all residential development designs without the burden of having to obtain a variance from the ZBA by proving a hardship.
After a lengthy discussion among the members, the Board came to a general consensus to reduce the cluster housing minimum tract frontage requirement (found in Section O.3.a of Article XIV) from one hundred and fifty (150) feet to one hundred (100) feet. The Board came to this conclusion upon determining that new back lots will be allowed to have a minimum tract frontage along a Class V road of fifty (50) feet with the condition that they will never be allowed to be further subdivided or have a minimum tract frontage of one hundred (100) feet with the ability to further subdivided the back lot at a later date. The Board agreed that one hundred (100) feet of frontage is desirable in order to construct a Class V Town road within a fifty (50) foot right of way within this one hundred (100) foot tract frontage requirement. Mr.
Houseworth stated that he would amend the memo to reflect the Board’s intent and will present it to the Board at a future meeting in order for the Board to make a motion and adopt the amended legislation. Mr. Houseworth also asked the Board to consider whether or not cluster housing developments should continue to not be permitted in the Rural Conservation District, as required in Section O.3.a of Article XIV, especially because this zoning district was created to promote current use, conservation easements, and contiguous tracts of open space. After a short discussion, the Board came to a general consensus that cluster housing developments should be permitted in the Rural Conservation District. Mr. Houseworth stated that he would provide a memo to the Board in the future proposing to permit cluster housing developments in the Rural Conservation District.
Ordinance & Regs – Further Subdivision of Preexisting Back Lots: Mr. Houseworth provided the Board with a memo, essentially asking the Board to address two main issues or concerns: 1) Should the Board continue to allow the further subdivision of back lots?; and 2) Should the required minimum road frontage for Back Lots be increased from fifty (50) feet to a greater distance (found in Section S.2.b of Article XIV – Supplemental Regulations)? After a lengthy discussion among the members, the Board came to a general consensus to establish two different categories for newly created back lots: 1) Back Lots with only fifty (50) feet of frontage on a Class V Road which, once established, will not be allowed to be further subdivided in the future; and 2) Back Lots with at least one hundred (100) feet of
frontage which may be allowed to be further subdivided in the future pending Planning Board approval. The Board came to the conclusion that Back Lots were initially allowed without any foresight regarding whether or not they should be allowed to be further subdivided and concluded that fifty (50) feet of road frontage is simply not enough distance to construct a new Class V town road within while still providing enough buffer to abutting property owners. Mr. Houseworth stated that he would amend the memo to reflect the Board’s intent and will present it to the Board at a future meeting in order for the Board to make a motion and adopt the amended legislation.
Ordinance & Regs – Proposed Changes to Setbacks and Yard Requirement Exceptions: Mr. Houseworth provided the Board with a memo proposing to delete Section N.3. - Yard Requirements of Article XIV – Supplemental Regulations regarding exemptions to front yard setback requirements due to the proximity of adjacent buildings/ structures to the street or street right of way. He explained that the reason for the proposed deletion is that these requirements essentially allow new primary structures to be erected and encroach into a particular front yard setback because the adjacent, abutting landowners have an already existing, non-conforming structure in place. He stated that zoning districts and setback requirements are established for a reason, zoning ordinances should not allow exceptions unless
specifically permitted as a special exception, and it is really the duty of the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine when to grant variances or special exemptions to existing zoning district ordinances and setback requirements. Chairman Edwards and Ms. Rabideau both agreed with Mr. Houseworth and suggested that Section N.3. be deleted from Article XIV – Supplemental Regulations. Mr. Houseworth stated that he would amend the memo to reflect the Board’s consensus and will present it to the Board at a future meeting in order for the Board to make a motion and adopt the amended legislation.
In the same memo, Mr. Houseworth also proposed to delete Section N.5. - Yard Requirements in the Lakefront Residential District of Article XIV – Supplemental Regulations regarding exemptions to high water mark setback requirements for newly erected or constructed decks due to the proximity of adjacent, abutting decks to the high water mark. He explained that the reason for the proposed deletion of this legislation is very similar to the reasons stated above for the deletion of Section N.3. He stated that allowing exemptions to setback requirements from the high water mark of important water bodies in Town could be an even greater issue due to state requirements of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act and any subsequent changes or amendments. He stated that essentially it is up to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to make
the call whether or not to grant a variance depending on the situation and hardships.
After a lengthy discussion among the members, the Board came to a general consensus that Section N.5. of Article XIV needs to be amended, not deleted, essentially allowing decks to encroach within a certain distance of the one hundred (100) foot high water mark setback requirement but not to the extent of existing, non-conforming structures that are adjacent and/ or abutting the property. The Board’s general feeling was that decks should be allowed to be erected and constructed on existing, non-conforming structures but only within a certain distance into the high water mark setback. Mr. Vasques advised the Board of RSA 483-B:11 (Nonconforming Structures) which permits decks to extend up to twelve (12) feet into the fifty (50) foot high water mark setback area and suggested that perhaps the Board adopt the same distance for
the Town regulations in Section N.5. Mr. Houseworth stated that he would amend the memo to reflect the Board’s consensus and will e-mail it to the members for their review prior to a future meeting in order for the Board to make a motion and adopt the amended legislation.
Administrative Charges – Proposed Increases to the Boards’ Hearing Fees: Mr. Houseworth provided the members with a spreadsheet outlining the current hearing fee charges and the proposed hearing fee charges. Mr. Houseworth explained that he is proposing an increase to a number of hearing fee charges in order to pay costs for the time spent by the planning staff in order to supply adequate information to the Boards for these public hearings. The Board agreed to increase the following hearing fees: conceptual consultations, PSNH hearings regarding scenic roads, minor site plan review – home based business, major site plan review, minor subdivision, major subdivision, earth excavation and reclamation applications, earth excavation and reclamation permits, hearings for projects involving the
extension of public water services, appeals, special exceptions, and variances to the ZBA, and rehearings for ZBA decisions. The Board also agreed to establish an annual fee for yearly earth excavation and reclamation inspections and increased the costs for hard copies of all ordinance and regulation handbooks or manuals to fifteen ($15) dollars per copy.
Letter to the Board of Selectmen regarding the New Certificate of Use & Occupancy: Mr. Houseworth briefed the Board on a discussion he had with Mr. Jeff Parsons regarding the new procedure to be implemented for the necessary inspections by the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and Building Inspector required prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy. He explained that it is important for all parties involved to be clear on how the procedure will work, what each inspector will address, and how to make it as efficient, easy, and user friendly as possible. After a short discussion among the members, the Board tasked Chairman Edwards with the duty of drafting a letter, presenting it to the Board and staff for review, and then sending it to the Board of Selectmen regarding the Board’s concern
with the implementation of this new procedure and requesting that a meeting be held with the inspectors and Selectmen to assure that everyone is aware and has a similar understanding of the process, potential problems, and issues with the initial implementation of the certificate of use and occupancy form.
Special Planning Board Meeting: Mr. Houseworth advised the members that a special planning board meeting has been scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall for the final public hearing. He stated that the reason for the final public hearing is to address the necessary changes to Article XII - Floodplain Development District of the Town of placeCityAntrim Zoning Ordinances and paragraph Q. Special Flood Hazard Areas of Section IX -General Standards and Requirements of the Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations as required by FEMA for the adoption of the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and continue participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Route 9 Study Committee: Members were advised that Mr. Sawich is holding another Rt. 9 Study Committee meeting in order to review, alter, and modify the draft ordinance titled, “Preferred Development Zones,” in Antrim at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at placePlaceNameAntrim PlaceTypeTown Hall. Mr. Houseworth stated that all Board members are invited to attend.
Chairman Edwards moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Edwards adjourned the meeting at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley J. Houseworth, Planning Technician, Antrim Planning Board
| |
