ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the May 3, 2007 Board Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Scott Burnside Bob Edwards Bradley Houseworth
Andrew Robblee Brian Sawich Stephen Schacht
Christopher Stephenson Paul Vasques
Members and Staff Absent:
Mary Allen Joseph Koziell Alex Snow Kathi Wasserloos
Public Attendees:
Julie Anderson Peter Beblowski John Burnham Nancy Burnham
Nate Chamberlin John Cronin Laurie Demers Micheline DeRosa
John Gordon Susan Gordon David Kirkpatrick Steve Lowe
Phil Marrotte Roger Murray Scott Peterson Peter Pitsas
John A. Szehi Mark Voorhees Rod Zwirner
Chairman Sawich opened the public meeting at 7:00 PM, introduced himself and the Board.
Peter Pitsas – Presentation on estimate to prepare road specifications for Antrim: Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Peter Pitsas, Underwood Engineers, Inc, to present his proposal to the Board regarding the preparation of road specifications for the Town of Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations. Mr. Pitsas provided a handout to the members outlining the items that Underwood Engineers intends to address during the updating of the subdivision regulations and explained that the list is not all inclusive so additional items may be added or revised as they go through the process. He explained that they would like to maintain the existing format of the subdivision regulations but will retype and reformat Section IX – General Standards and Requirements in a Microsoft Word format. He explained
that the updating process will involve work sessions with the Planning Board or designated representative and they plan on expanding the following requirements: 1) Parking, 2) Driveway, 3) Roadway, 4) Drainage, and 5) Inspections. In addition, he explained that they would like to add the following requirements: Design drawings, Utility Design, Drainage Report, Traffic Study, Cistern, Stump Removal, Boulder Removal, Construction, and Record Drawings/ As-Builts. He stated that they would also like to add the following typical details on 8½” x 11” paper so they can be easily included in the regulations: Stabilized Construction Entrance, Road Section, Roadway Tie-in, Typical Driveway Section, Catch Basin, Trench Section, Headwall, Level Spreader, and Stone-Lined and Grass-Lined Swales.
Mr. Pitsas explained that the goal of this updating process is to: 1) give the Town better subdivision regulations, 2) to provide the design engineer with more information for what the Town is looking for in terms of road specifications and help speed up their design process, and 3) to help Underwood Engineers, Inc. speed up their review of the designs and engineered plans. Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Pitsas if he is planning on getting input from the Road Agent, Mr. Bob Varnum, regarding the proposed changes to the road specifications; he replied yes. Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Pitsas how long the project would take. Mr. Pitsas stated that he is hoping to have the project done by the end of September 2007 and explained that Mr. Vasques has expressed interest in having it completed by the fall of 2007 in order to have the Board
approve the changes, hold a public hearing on the changes, and change the subdivision regulations prior to the end of the year. Mr. Pitsas explained that the first proposal from Underwood Engineers, Inc. to complete the project was estimated to cost seven thousand, three hundred ($7,300) dollars but because the Town of Antrim has been a good client for sometime, the President agreed to reduce the cost of the price to five thousand, three hundred ($5,300) dollars. Mr. Pitsas stated that they don’t mind reducing the price by another three hundred ($300) dollars in order to get the cost within the Planning Department’s budget for consultants.
After a short deliberation, Mr. Edwards made a motion to accept the proposed scope of work at the cost of five thousand ($5,000) dollars with the ability to add additional items as the process goes forward, which was seconded by Mr. Schacht and was unanimously approved.
Hutchinson/ Nastasi – Conceptual Consultation for a Lot Line Adjustment: Chairman Sawich appointed Mr. Stephenson to sit for the absent Mr. Snow. Chairman Sawich opened the meeting on the request of Arnold G. and Barbara D. Hutchinson for a conceptual consultation regarding a potential lot line adjustment for properties at 91 Gregg Lake Road (Tax Map 101, Lot 60) and 5 Holt Hill Road (Tax Map 101, Lot 57) in Antrim, NH in the Rural Conservation and Lakefront Residential Districts. Chairman Sawich asked the applicant to present his proposal. Mr. John Cronin, III, introduced himself, stated that he is an agent of the Hutchinsons, and introduced the surveyor/ engineer from Vorce, Soney, and Associates, Inc. that has worked on this matter, Mr. Scott Peterson. Mr. Cronin explained that they are
here to get a sense from the Board in order to provide substantive information in a situation that has been difficult for both the Hutchinsons and their abutting neighbors, the Nastasis. He stated that the Nastasis have inadvertently or mistakenly constructed part of a garage, part of a shed, and part of a kennel on the Hutchinson’s property. He explained that he has determined from Town Hall records that the garage, shed, and kennel where constructed sometime in1995. He stated that several years later it was discovered that the Nastasis encroached on the Hutchinson’s property.
Mr. Cronin explained that the Hutchinson’s tried to resolve the issue with the Nastasis by agreeing in principal to a lot line adjustment that would shift the lot line in contention to the east, allowing the constructed structures to be on the Nastasis’ property with the necessary required setbacks. He stated that a part of the arrangement would include the Nastasis’ paying for the Hutchinson’s out of pocket costs related to completing the lot line adjustment. He explained that the Hutchinsons provided the Nastasis with a price based on the assessed value of the property (prorated for the number of square feet), the actual cost for the surveying, legal recording, and the cost of involving the mortgage company. He stated that the Nastasis have asked for the total cost in advance to signing the
necessary agreement and that depends on what the Board will require for a lot line adjustment in this particular circumstance. He explained that they are here to get some guidance from the Board to help provide a more exact cost to the Nastasis for the project. He stated that there is a checklist that is used for all lot line adjustments, annexations, or minor subdivisions and they would like the Board to consider the possibility of waiving the requirement for a perimeter survey of the entire Nastasi lot, which would be a considerable expense. He explained that to his knowledge, the Nastasis’ lot has not been surveyed recently, while the Hutchinson’s property was originally surveyed in 1973 by Don Mellen and recently by Mr. Peterson, and the boundary lines that would be affected by the proposed lot line adjustment are lines of record, both by plans and recorded instruments. He stated that therefore, under the circumstances, a perimeter survey of
the entire Nastasi lot should not be necessary since the two lines that would be brought into question are already established lines. He explained that there are also other requirements on the checklist, including checklist items # 9, 12 – 21, 23, 35, and 45 that may not be applicable to this type of a proposal and he asked Mr. Peterson to go through them with the Board.
After a short deliberation among the Board members and the applicants’ agents, the Board gave the impression that a number of the required items on the lot line adjustment checklist could potentially be waived or partially waived by the Board for this particular case and circumstance. Mr. Cronin thanked the Board for their time and their input in resolving this issue and they will reappear in front of the Board after they have a signed agreement between the two homeowners.
In-Ex Homes, LLC; File # 2007-02PB; Public Hearing for an Excavation Permit: Chairman Sawich thanked everyone for coming and continued the public meeting on the request of In-Ex Homes, LLC for a permit to operate an Earth Excavation Site on property located on Pleasant Street, Antrim, NH 03440 (Tax Map 1A, Lot 62) in the Rural District. The applicant proposes to operate an earth excavation site in order to prepare the site for a future residential development. Mr. Burnside recused himself because he is involved in the same business and Mr. Stephenson recused himself because he is an abutter. Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Houseworth to read aloud the public notice for the meeting, which he did, and asked him to give a background of this particular case in order to bring everyone up to speed to the present
status of the application.
Mr. Houseworth explained that excavation sites are not addressed by the Town of Antrim Zoning Ordinances, are not permitted, nor permitted by special exception in any of the current zoning districts, and therefore are prohibited in all zoning districts in Town. He stated that in this particular case, the excavation site was grandfathered and was being operated by Mr. Harriman, until he passed away. Mr. Houseworth explained that the excavation site was unfortunately left as is, in a non-reclaimed state, and is not considered to be an abandoned excavation site per RSA 155-E:2, II, because Mr. Harriman had submitted an intent to excavate form, showing that he had removed materials from the site within the last two years. He stated that because of these circumstances, the new owner of the excavation site must appear in front of
the Board to provide a reclamation plan to reclaim the site or an excavation and reclamation plan if they choose to excavate more material out of the site prior to reclaiming it. He explained that Mr. Marrotte applied to the Board for an excavation permit, the public hearing and first public meeting was conducted on April 19, 2007, the Board and abutters conducted a site walk or tour of the property on Monday, April 23, 2007, and the public meeting was continued to the next Board meeting on May 3, 2007 in order to review the checklist and address any additional concerns.
Chairman Sawich stated that they have already closed the public hearing, the Board is now in the deliberation stage, and asked the applicants to present the revised plans and any other additional information to the Board. Mr. Vasques pointed out to the Board that the revised plans were received tonight, the Planning Staff has not had an opportunity to review them, and it is entirely up to the Board to decide whether they want to continue with the public meeting. He explained that the Board normally requires that new information or revised plans be provided to the Planning Staff seven (7) days in advance of the meeting in order to review them for the appropriateness and completeness. Mr. Chamberlin explained that it is the same plan that was brought to the site walk and only minor revisions were conducted. The Board
decided to continue the public meeting and asked Mr. Chamberlin to present the new information and revised plans to the Board.
Mr. Chamberlin explained that there was a question at the previous public meeting, and the site walk, regarding whether a particular swale on the site was a jurisdictional wetland. He explained that they had their senior soil and wetland scientist, Mr. Timothy Ferwerda, review the area again and he determined that it is in fact not a jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Chamberlin provided the Board with a letter from Mr. Ferwerda, essentially explaining that he had conducted an on-site inspection of the area on April 30, 2007 and although he observed some standing water in the swale, there was not a defined channel, the soils did not have distinct and prominent characteristics of poorly drained soils, and the vegetation was predominantly all upland species.
Mr. Chamberlin explained that there were many concerns raised by the abutters about the amount of material being removed from the site and the associated truck traffic so they tried to address it by bringing the grade up and reducing the amount of material proposed to be removed from the site from seventy thousand (70,000) cubic yards to fifty four thousand (54,000) cubic yards. He stated that there were also concerns expressed about the excavation site being fifty (50) feet from opposing abutters’ property lines and they therefore decided to pull back the entire excavation area at least fifty (50) feet from the property line, except at one small area along the southern property line of the excavation site.
Mr. Chamberlin explained that there were also a lot of concerns expressed about traffic and traffic safety so they decided to put together a preliminary signage plan or traffic management plan, which includes: a battery powered, flashing beacon sign that states, ‘Warning – Trucks Entering and Exiting,’ to be placed to the west of the excavation site, along Pleasant Street and above the s-curve hill; a ‘Children at Play’ sign to be placed on Pleasant Street near the intersection with Bryers Lane; a ‘Maximum Truck Speed – 20 MPH’ sign to be placed on Pleasant Street to the east of the intersection with Bryers Lane; a ‘No “Jake” Braking Allowed’ sign to be placed along Pleasant Street to the west of the intersection with South Summit Avenue; and a ‘Caution –
Dangerous Intersection Ahead’ sign to be placed along Pleasant Street to the west of the intersection with Highland Avenue. He explained that these are some of the things they are willing to do to mitigate the truck traffic and help alleviate the concerns of the abutters regarding truck traffic and safety issues. He stated that these are the majority of the revisions that have been done since the site walk and they want to work with the Board on this project. He also explained that it is hard to determine an elevation for the seasonal high water table because it is a sloping site and is constantly changing. He stated that the test borings showed that there is no water ten (10) or twenty (20) feet below the proposed excavation level.
Chairman Sawich asked the Planning Staff if the new information provided by the applicants is something they would like to review before continuing the meeting or if they would like to proceed with the review of the checklist.
Mr. Houseworth suggested that the Board start with the checklist and address any other issues that may come up during the review or deliberation. Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Houseworth to guide the Board through the checklist, addressing those items that the Planning Staff has deemed to be incomplete or missing. The Members reviewed the incomplete items on the checklist and made the following determinations:
1. Item B.6 – Revise Note # 12 on sheet 2 of 3: “Proposed Hours of Operation will be from
7 AM – 5 PM, Monday through Friday, and no operations shall be conducted on Holidays.” Revise Note # 13 on sheet 3 of 3: “The Duration of the Project shall not exceed twelve (12) months, including the final reclamation of the site, and is subject to a permit renewal by the Board if an extension is necessary.”
2. Item B.7 – A note is to be added to the plan stating: “A Copy of the ‘Notice of Intent’ that is filed in order to obtain the necessary federal permit from the EPA, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Storm Water General Permit for Small Construction Activity, shall be provided to the Board, along with all necessary construction activity records, inspection records, and plans for sediment removal when design capacity has been reduced by fifty (50%).”
3. Item B.8 – a table showing the depths of the test borings, existing and proposed elevations, soil sample descriptions at various depths, and any groundwater observation information will be provided to the Board.
4. Item B.9 – The tree line is to be redrawn to match the existing tree line that is currently there now, after the most recent clearing, in order to reflect current conditions.
5. Item B.16 – A note is to be added to the plan stating: “The proposed signage to address safety and human hazards, as shown and described in detail on the traffic plan on sheet ?, is required to be in place at all times throughout the duration of the project.”
Mr. Chamberlin stated that the signage/ traffic plan will be incorporated into the plan.
6. Item B.18 – A written waiver request was submitted for this checklist item (Copies of any required State and Federal Permits). A note is to be added to the plan stating the following language from the written waiver request: “Final town approval of the excavation site will be contingent upon obtaining all required State and Federal Permits and no excavation shall be done prior to obtaining these permits.” This will also be a condition of approval prior to an excavation permit being granted.
7. Item C.2 – Sheet 1 of the plans to be revised to include and describe by a dashed line the outline of Mr. Bob Varnum’s house lot, off of Pleasant Street.
8. Item C.3 – A written waiver request was submitted for this checklist item (Final topography of the area proposed for reclamation and the land within two hundred (200) feet of the boundary of this site). Mr. Robblee moved to accept the written waiver request for item number C.3 on the checklist, which was second by Mr. Schacht and was unanimously approved. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Sawich – aye, Mr. Edwards – aye,
Mr. Schacht – aye, and Mr. Robblee – aye. Item # C.3 has been satisfied.
9. Item # VIII. E – A note is to be added stating: “The only types of vehicles used for hauling materials for this excavation operation will be 10-20 cubic yard triaxles.”
10. Item XII – The establishment of a reclamation bond and a road bond will be done prior to the granting of an excavation permit and will be a condition of approval.
11. Item RSA 155-E:3, VI-a – A note is to be added to the plan: “The use of ‘jake’ brakes on Pleasant Street is prohibited throughout the duration of the project.”
12. Item 4 from the ‘Advisory Comments by Planning Department’ – A note is to be added to the plan: “The grinding or chipping of tree stumps is permissible on-site.” General Note # 20 to remain stating: “Rock Crushing shall not be permitted on-site.”
Chairman Sawich stated that he would like to review the letters from the Department Heads and the Conservation Commission but also wants to give the abutters a chance to bring up any other additional comments or information that may have come up due to the recent site walk. He asked Mr. Houseworth to read aloud the reports from the Antrim Police Department and the Road Agent, to make sure the Board addresses their concerns, which he did. Chairman Sawich stated that he would like the Board to address a point brought up by Officer Matthew L. Elliot in his report: the limited visibility when ‘coming from both the east and the west due to the growth of brush and trees.’ Chairman Sawich asked if there is some way to mitigate the limited visibility issue; Mr. Houseworth advised the Board of a comment from Mr. Varnum
that perhaps a section of the hill on Ms. Micheline DeRosa’s property (Map 1A, Lot 67) could be shaved off or cut back to improve the sight distance up the s-curve hill and referred the Members to the most recent Antrim Conservation Commission’s report which recommends that a slope easement be negotiated with the Ms. DeRosa in order to improve the line of sight in that direction.
Chairman Sawich asked Ms. DeRosa to speak to the issue. She introduced herself, provided a photo of the hill on her property that fronts Pleasant Street, and explained that there is no growth except the short grass on the hill. She stated that the excavation site has really no line of sight up Pleasant Street and she was informed that there was a proposal to cut the hill on her property down by four (4) feet but she claims this will not change the line of sight. She explained that she had a surveyor this morning looking at her property and it was suggested that perhaps up to twenty (20) feet would need to be disturbed in order to get a good line of sight. She also stated that there are four (4) large trees that are over sixty (60’) feet high on the corner of her property within the proposed cut area that are
relatively close to her home. Mr. Chamberlin stated that the
Board needs to remember that the trucks sit up higher than normal vehicles and therefore have better lines of sight. Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Beblowski to clarify the conservation commission’s recommendation that the right side hill be cut and asked if they meant to actually remove the soil. Mr. Beblowski replied yes and stated that they are suggesting the removal of two (2’) or three (3’) feet of depth, and still keep the hill there, in order to improve the line of sight. He suggested that the applicant’s engineer and the Town’s engineer look at that possibility to see if that type of a remedy could be a reasonable solution for a problem that has been identified by the abutters, the Board Members, and the Road Agent. Mr. Marrotte stated that when Mr. Harriman initially subdivided the
property and created the back lot, the Town must have granted him a driveway permit to locate the access there with the appropriate lines of sight. Ms. DeRosa stated that she will not agree to anything until she sees something in writing. Mr. Robblee asked Ms. DeRosa if she would consider improving the line of sight on the hill if an engineered plan was drawn up showing the proposed cut into the hillside, she replied that she without seeing anything in writing she can’t say one way or another. She stated that they have already cleared all of the brush and if the proposal includes taking away any of her land, than she does not agree with the proposal. Mr. Vasques stated that the Police Department has also proposed to place the speed trailer on Pleasant Street at certain times to remind motorists to be aware of their speed, have committed to increased patrols of the area during the day, and even suggested that perhaps a detailed police officer and
cruiser stand by this area with emergency lights visible to oncoming traffic. Chairman Sawich stated that it seems the rest of the Police Departments’ and Road Agent’s concerns were addressed by the change in hours of operation, the prohibiting of ‘jake’ braking on Pleasant Street, and the establishment of a road bond.
Chairman Sawich asked Mr. Beblowski to present the Conservation Commission’s most recent report to the Board, which is on file at Town Hall. Mr. Beblowski read a letter, dated May 3, 2007, outlining six (6) points of concern regarding the proposed excavation site including: 1) the sight distance looking uphill upon the exiting of the site (marginal at best); 2) engineering a solution to properly handle the surface drainage from the south side of Pleasant Street and the west side of the access driveway; 3) the property setbacks on the plan should indicate a 50 foot buffer zone for disapproving abutters and 10 feet for approving abutters; 4) the need for a Special Use Permit to be obtained from the Board and the recommendation that the applicants meet with the conservation commission to review the Natural Resource Benefit Policy;
5) a recommendation to have an independent wetland scientist the wetland swale on site to confirm it is not a wetland; 6) a recommendation that a hydrogeologic investigation be conducted by a professional geologist/ engineer to identify where the groundwater table is located and evaluate whether the proposed site development will negatively impact the stratified drift aquifer.
Chairman Sawich asked the Board how they want to handle the sixth criteria regarding the recommendation to locate the groundwater table and have a hydrogeologic investigative studied completed on the site. Mr. Beblowski stated that he believes that Mr. Harriman may have excavated pretty close to the groundwater table in the existing excavation area, near the bottom of the pit, and stated that although the proposed excavation will occur mostly on the two ridges, there has been no test borings or test pits done at the bottom of the existing pit in order to locate where the actual seasonal high water table is. Mr. Chamberlin explained that the bottom of the existing pit will be filled in with material that could be up to twenty (20’) feet deep. Mr. Beblowski suggested that at the very least a note be added to the plans
stating: “The excavation activities proposed are not going to negatively impact the underlying stratified drift aquifer.” He explained that then the applicant is on record for having this opinion and will be held accountable for any damages to the underlying aquifer or groundwater resources in the area.
Mr. Edwards expressed concerns about the Conservation Commission’s fourth item of concern on the May 3, 2007 letter, regarding the impact of the twenty five (25’) foot wetland buffer and the need for the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit from the Board. Mr. Chamberlin stated that he believes that it was inadvertently cut and would be happy to work with the Conservation Commission and Board to find a way to resolve the issue. Mr. Beblowski suggested that the Board require the applicants to meet with the Conservation Commission regarding the violation of the twenty five (25) foot wetland setback area and to discuss the Conservation Commission’s Natural Resource Benefit Policy. Mr. Vasques stated that a letter would then be sent from the Conservation Commission to the Board, or the Board would be
informed at the next meeting, regarding their meeting and any suggested actions or conditions. In regards to the Conservation Commission’s second concern, regarding surface drainage from Pleasant Street, Mr. Chamberlin explained that they will find an engineered solution with a drop structure or something to mitigate the surface water drainage issues from Pleasant Street and onto the excavation site.
Mr. Houseworth informed the Board and read aloud a letter that was received on April 24, 2007 from an abutter, Mrs. Cory Stephenson, 66 Pleasant Street, regarding her concerns about the proposed excavation site. She expressed concerns in her letter about limiting the hours of operation to normal business hours, Monday through Friday; safety issues related to the heavy truck traffic; recommending that an independent environmental impact study be conducted; and the whether or not it is necessary to remove this amount of material off site. Chairman Sawich asked the Members if they heard any new concerns in the letter that haven’t already been addressed, the consensus was no and most of the concerns had been addressed.
Mr. Vasques recommended that due to the fact that a number of revisions need to be done to the plans and bonds need to be established, the Board continue the public meeting to a future meeting, allow the applicant to update the drawings, provide the additional information, submit copies of the applications for the state and federal permits, meet with Mr. Beblowski and the Conservation Commission, and then decide whether or not to approve the application. Chairman Sawich asked if the Board can address the bonds now or get the process going. Mr. Vasques stated that all you can do is start the process which includes the Town Engineer and Water and Sewer Department being involved for the road bond for Pleasant Street and working on a reclamation bond, which has been previously estimated to be anywhere from three to eight thousand
dollars per acre. Mr. Edwards asked the Planning Staff if it would be appropriate to have the Town Engineer review the stormwater protection plan and proposed best management practices (BMPs) for handling surface drainage issues for this proposed excavation operation. Mr. Vasques stated that he is not sure if it is Mr. Pitsas’ area of expertise but he would definitely bring it up with Mr. Pitsas to find out if it is possible and how much it would cost. Mr. Edwards recommended that the staff look into the issue and address it with Mr. Pitsas.
Chairman Sawich explained that he understands that a lot of abutters have additional concerns that weren’t expressed at the public hearing due to the recent site walk on April 23, 2007 and he therefore asked for any additional comments from abutters regarding concerns that haven’t been previously discussed or addressed. Mr. Christopher Stephenson stated that he has a few concerns that weren’t yet addressed and explained that one is the blind visibility for travelers going east and west when approaching the hump in the road on Pleasant Street near the intersection with High Street. Mr. Stephenson stated that this issue is further intensified by the width of the existing road, parked cars on the side of the road, and other large trucks passing on the road at the same time due to a nearby construction site.
Mr. Vasques explained that he thinks the parking can be addressed by the Police Department by placing ‘No Parking’ signs up on the side of the road on Pleasant Street, although it wasn’t expressed as a concern by the Police Department in their reports. Mr. Chamberlin explained that they can certainly measure the road width and address the ability of trucks to pass on the existing road. Mr. Vasques suggested that the Planning Staff check with the Road Agent to see if it is possible to put in a temporary ‘Caution’ sign that could be removed after the excavation operations are complete.
Mr. Stephenson stated that another of his concerns is in regards to the school buses going up and down Pleasant Street and the number of children waiting at the bus stops without parental supervision. He explained that it is a large risk for the school children waiting on the side of Pleasant Street and is concerned with their safety due to the heavy truck traffic. Other neighbors in attendance expressed concerns about the blinding sun on Pleasant Street in the afternoons also. Mrs. Nancy Burnham asked if it would be possible to discuss with the school bus company the possibility of adding more bus and driveway stops so the children aren’t waiting outside as long. She explained that the children now are dropped off in large groups on Pleasant Street. Mr. Vasques stated that it is definitely worth pursuing.
Mr. Stephenson stated that he is also concerned with whether or not the excavation permit should be approved. He explained that section VI (Prohibited Projects) in the Town of Antrim Earth Excavation and Reclamation Regulations states that ‘no permit shall be granted for the following projects… C. When the issuance of the permit would be unduly hazardous or injurious to public welfare,’ and he feels that there have been a lot of concerns expressed by the neighborhood that might not have been addressed and he hasn’t really heard the Board speak to how they are quantifying the risk versus the value. He stated that it really comes down to what is the value of the proposed excavation site? He also stated that this section VI prohibits projects ‘when the excavation is not permitted by zoning or
other applicable ordinance,’ and it clearly states in the Town Zoning Ordinances that it is not a permitted activity in a rural neighborhood. He explained that he understands that the site is grandfathered but doesn’t understand how the grandfathering is attached to the land versus the owner, and stated that he sees this application as a separate permit all together because the applicant is expanding the existing pit excavation area that was grandfathered and is a completely separate consideration for the Town.
Chairman Sawich asked the Planning Staff to speak to the grandfathering issue regarding this site and the expansion of an existing excavation area. Mr. Vasques stated that he believes the grandfathering of an excavation site includes the entire property and not just the existing, excavated area. Mr. Houseworth reiterated that because Mr. Harriman filed an ‘Intent to Excavate’ form from April 1, 2005 – Mar 31, 2006, proving that material had been removed within the last two (2) years, the existing excavation site is not deemed to be abandoned by RSA 155-E:2, II, and therefore the new owner, Mr. Marrotte, needs to only appear in front of the Board for an excavation permit. Mr. Houseworth added that according to RSA 155-E:2, I (b), an “excavation area may not be expanded, without a permit under this
chapter,…” and therefore the new owner must appear in front of the Board for an excavation permit. Mr. Houseworth stated that he would have to check with Town Counsel regarding whether or not the grandfathering of an existing excavation site runs with the owner or the land but because the Board regulates land, and not people, he believes the grandfathering runs with the land. Mr. Beblowski pointed out that RSA 155-E:1, V, defines an ‘excavation site’ as, “any area of contiguous land in common ownership upon which excavation takes place;” which seems to indicate that the entire parcel of land containing an excavation area is defined by the state legislator as an excavation site.
Christopher Stephenson explained that the transaction of the land, on the MLA sheet, was a sale of thirty plus acres of land and was not defined as a commercial, sand pit operation. He stated that he didn’t see anything on the deed about the excavation permit being transferred to the new owner. Mr. Houseworth explained that Mr. Harriman passed away, an un-reclaimed excavation site was left, and whoever purchases the lot has assumed the liability and responsibility to reclaim the existing, excavation pit area. He stated that they would check with Town Counsel regarding the grandfathering of the excavation site. Mr. Stephenson expressed concern regarding the Board not requiring to see the cluster housing subdivision design and plan prior to deciding on whether or not to grant an excavation permit for the site and
asked why the Board would allow this excavation operation to happen if the subdivision plan never occurs or isn’t approved. Mr. Schacht replied that the property is still a legal lot and he could still operate an excavation operation on it without subdividing the property. Mr. Stephenson explained that the applicant stated that the excavation was being done in order to prepare the site for residential house lots and to meet the Town’s Steep Slopes Zoning Ordinance so he feels it should be required.
Mr. Stephenson suggested that perhaps a zoning ordinance exception, for the Steep Slopes Zoning Ordinance, could be considered in order to allow the applicant to put the houses he needs in without impacting the neighborhood. Mr. Houseworth explained that this public meeting is for the Board to decide if an excavation permit will be granted. He explained that if it is granted, then the applicant would apply for a major subdivision and provide a residential development plan at that time. He stated that in addition, the Planning Board doesn’t have the authority to waive or allow exceptions to zoning ordinances and that type of a proposal would have to be addressed by the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment. After a short discussion about the potential to waive the requirements of the Steep Slopes Zoning Ordinance,
the Board recommended that the applicants look into that possibility later during the subdivision process. Chairman Sawich closed the public and abutter comment period and continued the public meeting to May 17, 2007 at 7 PM at Town Hall. Mr. Vasques asked the applicants to provide the revised plans and new information seven (7) days in advance of the next Board meeting. Mr. Burnside and Mr. Stephenson rejoined the Board.
Approval of Planning Board Meeting Minutes: Mr. Edwards moved to approve the minutes of the April 19, 2007 Planning Board meeting as corrected, which was seconded by Mr. Schacht and unanimously passed. The Board agreed to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2007 Planning Board Site Walk meeting minutes at the next meeting on May 17, 2007.
Homes at High Hills – Request for Information: Mr. Vasques presented a letter, dated April 19, 2007, to the Board and sent to Mr. John Cook, Kateco Developing, LLC, regarding Mr. Thibeault’s request for information dated April 12, 2007 from Mr. Peter Pitsas (Underwood Engineers, Inc.). Mr. Vasques explained that Mr. Pitsas has point out that the requested information by Mr. Thibeault was developed for the benefit of the Town of Antrim to insure that the road construction would meet town specifications and the data is proprietary to both Kateco and the Town of Antrim since Kateco Developing, Inc. paid for the services. Mr. Vasques explained that for these reasons, Mr. Pitsas has stated that the release of the information must be authorized by both the Town of Antrim and Kateco Developing, Inc.
Mr. Vasques informed the Board that the town has no objection to release the information but has advised Underwood Engineering to not release the data unless they receive an authorization in writing from Kateco Developing, Inc. He added that Kateco should be informed that some of the requested information is not currently available and would have to be generated, in addition to them bearing the cost of this additional work.
CBS Holdings – Notice of possible revocation of conditional approval: Mr. Vasques presented a letter, dated April 19, 2007, to the Board and sent to Mr. Leigh Bosse, CBS Holdings, LLC, regarding the outstanding balance of one thousand ($1,000) dollars required for the additional peer review services performed based upon the resubmission of drainage designs for the culvert in the Cloud Court subdivision. Mr. Vasques informed the Board that Mr. Bosse is not in compliance with Section IV, paragraph C.5 of the Antrim Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations and if a check is not received before May 3, 2007, the Board would be recommended to revoke the granted subdivision conditional approval per RSA 676:4. Mr. Vasques advised the Board that the payment was received in full from Mr. Bosse last
week.
Planning Department Reorganization Meeting - Set a Date: Mr. Vasques presented to the Board a packet of information regarding the reorganization of the Planning Staff and Planning Department, which was presented to the Town Administrator at a meeting on April 26, 2007. Mr. Vasques explained that this is the proposal the planning staff is recommending to the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen regarding how the Planning Department should be reorganized upon the leaving of the Town Planner. Mr. Houseworth advised the Board that the next steps are for the Reorganization Subcommittee to meet next week, come up with a proposal of how we would like to see the Planning Department reorganized and then present it to the Board of Selectmen at the Selectmen’s meeting on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 7
PM.
Cindy Bagley – Interested in serving as an Alternate Member of the Board: Mr. Vasques informed the Board that Mr. Burnside stated that Ms. Cindy Bagley is still interested in becoming an alternate member of the Planning Board but couldn’t attend tonight due to emergency personal matters that came up. He stated she should be at the next meeting.
Updated Membership Roster: Members were provided with an updated roster showing the addition of the contact information for Ms. Cindy Bagley. Mr. Vasques pointed out that if Ms. Bagley joins the Board, there will be one (1) vacant seat left for an alternate member.
DRAFT of the Planning Board By Laws: Mr. Vasques provided the Members with a DRAFT of the proposed ‘Planning Board By Laws’ and suggested that we review it at the next meeting after everyone has a chance to thoroughly review them. He stated that these will be very helpful for new Board members and finally solidify some rules of conduct.
Thibeault & Son – Objection to the April 5, 2007 minutes of the Planning Board: Mr. Vasques presented the Members with a letter, dated April, 20, 2007, from Mr. Thomas R. Thibeault to the Planning Board Members objecting to certain statements in the Board’s DRAFT 04-05-07 Meeting minutes and requested that language be inserted that all construction was performed in accordance with the construction specification standards and is within the plan design of Ashley and Green Ridge Road, approved and recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The Board acknowledged the receipt of the letter and his concerns were presented to the Board.
D’Amelio – Code Violation – Deck Construction within the 100’ Set Back: Mr. Vasques presented the Board with a letter, dated April 24, 2007, and sent to Mr. David D’Amelio regarding the illegal construction of a new deck within the 100’ setback area from the high water mark in the Lakefront Residential District on Pierce Lake. Mr. D’Amelio was told that a variance from the Board of Adjustment would need to be granted prior to the issuance of a necessary building permit. Mr. Parsons recommended that Mr. D’Amelio apply for a variance ‘after the fact’ from the Zoning Board for the deck in order for him to be in compliance.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Mr. Schacht. Chairman Sawich adjourned the meeting at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Houseworth, Planning Technician, Antrim Planning Board
| 
