ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
January 19, 2010 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Scott Burnside (Chair) Diane Chauncey (Staff) David Dubois (Alternate)
Jesse Lazar (Alternate) Steve Schacht (ExOfficio) Peter Moore (Planner)
CR Willeke (Vice-Chair)
Member & Staff Absent:
Jenny Clifford (Alternate) Joe Koziell,(Member) Sandy Snow (Member), Andrew Robblee (Member) Kathi Wasserloos (Member)
Public Attendees: (representing themselves unless otherwise noted)
Shelly Nelkens Molly Moore-Lazar Richard Block(North Branch)
Peter Burwen Ben Pratt Loranne Carey Block
Annie Law Robert Cleland Margie Warner
Michael Pon (Villager ) Gordon Webber
Tom Davis (Hillsboro resident)
7:00 Review Period:
Appoint alternates to sit for absent members: Mr. Dubois to sit for Mr. Koziell; Mr. Lazar to sit for Mr. Snow.
Approve the Minutes of December 17, 2009
Mr. Willeke made a motion to postpone the approval of the December 17, 2009 draft minutes - not enough attending members. Mr. Schacht seconded the motion. The Board agreed unanimously.
Approve the Minutes of January 7, 2010
Mr. Willeke motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Schacht seconded the motion. The minutes were approved.
Public Hearing for the Proposed Ordinance Amendments of the Antrim Zoning Ordinance:
Chair Burnside opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Moore read the Public Notice that had been posted in the Villager on January 8, 2010:
Notice is hereby given that the Antrim Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 7:15 PM at Antrim Town Hall for the voters of Antrim to consider the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the Town of Antrim. Items pertaining to the Zoning Ordinances will be ballot items on March 9, 2010. Copies of the proposed changes and additions are available for review at Town Hall offices during business hours, Monday – Thursday, 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM.
The Board and the Staff introduced themselves. Chair Burnside stated that the amendments would be discussed in the order of the draft ballot. Public Attendees would have an opportunity to speak for each of the proposed amendment changes.
Article III - Definitions - Add - Mixed Use - Any combination of residential, commercial, public, etc.
Ms. Nelkens asked the purpose of the change. Mr. Burnside explained the Mixed Use definition and the subsequent addition of the words Mixed Use in Articles XIV and Article V were to place the use under Permitted Use. A "mixed use", he stated was a structure in which multiple uses occurred (examples: a restaurant and upstairs a dwelling;
a building which houses a bakery, hair salon, and several apartments).
Article IV (Village Business District) – Add - Mixed Use – Chair Burnside stated that the same explanation as Article III applied. It is recommended by the Planning Board. There were no comments.
Article V (Highway Business District) - Add - Mixed Use – Chair Burnside stated that the same explanation as Article III applied. It is recommended by the Planning Board. There were no comments.
4. Article XI - Wetlands District – Add - the following sentence - "This ordinance is an innovative land use control subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Planning Board." It is considered an Innovative Land Use Control. Recommended by the Planning Board and Town Counsel.
Ms. Nelkens asked the purpose.
Mr. Moore explained by reading from Town Counsel’s letter which stated: "RSA 674:21 authorizes a Town to adopt an innovative land use control, that includes administration of the ordinance, including the granting of special use permits, by the Planning Board. I believe it would be appropriate to add to the introductory paragraph G reference to the fact that this ordinance is an innovative land use control subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Planning Board. In this way, you will avoid the possibility that any Planning Board decision would subject to appeal to the Zoning Board. If disputes arise, the appeal is directly to the Superior Court, pursuant to RSA 677:15, rather than first appealing to the Zoning Board, which would be called upon to second guess the Planning Board's decision".
There was a short discussion concerning crossing the wetlands for construction purposes. Chair Burnside and Mr. Schacht stated that a permit to cross the wetlands is never issued without careful scrutiny by multiple boards (Planning Board, Conservation Commission).
Chair Burnside furthered explained that the Town of Antrim has a 25-foot buffer around all wetlands, and to further protect the wetlands, the Department of Environmental Services deals with wetlands impact.
Mr. Burwen asked if the addition of the sentence was an advantage (to the Zoning Ordinance).
Chair Burnside said that the addition was recommended by the Planning Board and Town Counsel.
5. Article XIV-B PWSF
Section 3 – Average Tree Canopy Change to read: "An average height found by inventorying the height, at above ground level (AGL), of all trees over twenty feet (20') in height within the area that extends for a distance of one-hundred-fifty feet (150') from the base of the mount, security barrier, or designated clear area for access to equipment, whichever is greatest. Trees that will be removed for construction shall not be used in this calculation". Chair Burnside read the proposed amendment, which is recommended by the Planning Board.
The change from fifty feet (50’) to one-hundred-fifty feet (150)’ area would give a larger area from which to calculate the average tree height. Most other towns which have Cell Tower in their zoning ordinances use the one-hundred-fifty feet for determining the Average Tree Canopy.
Section 4 – Location Change – PWSFs located in existing facilities shall be permitted in all Zoning Districts except the Residential District. Ground mounted PWSFs shall be permitted in all districts except the Residential District by Special Exception only. Applicants seeking approval for PWSFs shall first evaluate existing structures for the siting of PWSFs. Only after finding that there are no suitable existing structures pursuant to Section 4.3 herein, shall a provider propose a new ground mounted facility. (removed from Section 4 – Rural Conservation District)
Ms. Nelkens stated that she was glad that the Residential District would no longer have a cell tower as a permitted use. but felt that it was a mistake for the Rural Conservation District to be added to the zoning districts that allow cell towers as a permitted use – with a Special Exception. She said the Rural Conservation needed to be protected.
Mrs. Moore-Lazar asked the rationale of the amendment.
Chair Burnside explained that the Rural Conservation (RC) District encompassed a large portion of the Town and that cell tower coverage was needed in that area.
Mr. Block objected to the change. The following are some of his points:
· He and his wife have spent years researching Conservation protection.
· The RC District is one of Antrim’s biggest assets
· People have overwhelmingly stated that the rural character is what they want in Antrim
· Although he has intermittent cell phone service in the RC District, it felt it was worth it
· The ridges would be ruined.
· Surprised how visible Tuttle Hill is from the Gregg Lake area
· Sacrificing the RC District for this would be a big mistake.
· Great idea to keep cell towers out of the Residential District, but don’t sacrifice the RC District.
· Should not porcupine the hills.
· Suggested not removing the RC District from the current Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Nelkens felt that the 2 issues should be addressed as two different ballot questions on the ballot.
Chair Burnside said that he will take that suggestion into consideration.
Ms. Carey-Block disagreed with the “intermittent reception” in the RC District. She said that she has coverage all the way from her home to the downtown area. She also stated that the Willard Pond area is so special and the thought of paddling along and then to see a group of wind turbines would give her the “heebie-jeebies”.
Mr. Burwen stated that he was in favor of prohibiting cell towers in the Residential District. He questioned if there were any alternatives to dealing with future cell towers. Could a future cell tower company be dealt with in a different way – there are other areas that a cell tower might be placed.
Chair Burnside said that this is a common dilemma with the Board. Antrim is in a predicament – business is needed in the town. Once the flood plain on Route 202 and the Shoreland on Route 9 are removed, there is very little land that can be developed. The Planning Board must look at the Applicant’s proposal, not just the emotions of the abutters. The Board attempts to find the median. He stated that it can be difficult when a few houses in an area call themselves “residential”. There are often abutters who are against the proposal, no matter the zoning district,.
Mr. Schacht said that it (a proposed use) is always in someone’s backyard.
Ms. Nelkens stated that it is a known fact that if a business comes in, taxes go up.
Chair Burnside stated that he disagreed with that statement.
Mr. Moore explained the zoning districts and that the current zoning ordinance states that a cell tower may be allowed in all districts except the Rural Conservation with a special exception.
Mr. Burwen said that the zoning ordinance should be looked at to accommodate wireless providers.
Chair Burnside said that the placement would always be in someone’s backyard.
Mr. Burwen said that the issue should be addressed in two articles.
6. Article XVII - Sign Ordinance
Section A – ADD – Purpose and Intent - The purposes of this section are to protect and improve community appearance and aesthetics and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens without inhibiting the vitality of local businesses and organizations for whom adequate signage is of high importance. This section recognizes that establishments need identification and the public needs direction. This section aims to encourage the use of street graphics which are compatible with community character, are legible and clear, are non-distracting to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and are maintained in good repair. Recommended by the Planning Board.
Ms. Nelkens questioned the definition of the word adequate and that she was concerned about the size of signs and the lighting of signs.
Chair Burnside said that the proposed “Purpose and Intent” did not change the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Moore read parts of the Zoning Ordinance in reference to size of signs.
Chair Burnside said that some signs can be constructed with a Special Exception.
Mr. Davis questioned what had driven the bus on the definitions within the “Purpose and Intent”? He felt that all signs are a distraction and that the definition should be stated clearer.
Mr. Block stated that giant video signs should be prohibited. He stated that the Conval sign is a very bright intense red. Not all signs are distracting.
Mr. Burwen questioned the spirit of the “Purpose and Intent”. The spirit should be consistent within the Zoning Ordinance.
Section D – Signs Permitted with Permit from Building Inspector ADD –Sign permit should be co-signed by property owner and business owner.
7. Article XVIII – Administration and Enforcement
Section C. 1. Duties and Powers of the Board of Selectmen or the Zoning Officer CHANGE TO READ - Pursuant to RSA 155-A and RSA 674-51, building permits will be administered in accordance with the State of New Hampshire Building Code. Recommended by the Planning Board and the Building Inspector
Section D.2. When a Building Permit is Not Required – CHANGE TO READ No building permit shall be required for any construction, repair alteration or similar activity for structures less than 200 square feet. New structures less than 200 square feet will require a zoning permit.
There was a short discussion about the change from the current monetary description in the Zoning Ordinance to a square foot definition. Some Public Attendees questioned where a small structure could be placed.
It was determined that the words "free-standing" should be added in two places in front of the word "structure".
Chair Burnside stated that all setbacks must be adhered to and the setback depended on the zoning district.
Chair Burnside thanked the Public Attendees for their input.
8:00pm
Mr. Moore said the second Public Hearing will be on February 2, 2010.
Business Meeting:
Report of Capital Improvement Committee (CIP) for 2010-2015 - Mr. Moore passed out a revised handout of the CIP Report. The Planning Board reviewed the information. Mr. Moore explained the CIP Fiscal Year 2010-2015 Appropriations Chart (Summary). As there is no money for Capital Improvements, all department requests have been shifted to the right. With the guidance of the Selectmen and Galen Stearns (Town Administrator), the expenditures over the future 5 year period will be determined.
Mr. Moore went through the few expenditures of the CIP program for 2010 (thermal imaging for the Fire Department [will be a warrant article], repair of South Holt Hill Road and Old Concord Road).
Mr. Pratt stated that it was discouraging that Highland Ave will not be done until 2014. He explained the dimensions of the water mains and how the size of the main affects the water pressure on Highland Ave. He stated that there would be no benefit of 12” main until Highland Street 6” main is replaced. A discussion concerning the process of the upgrade was discussed and whether or not it should be on the CIP Program. Chair Burnside said that he could determine the cost by comparing to the State DOT prices.
8:35pm
Planning Board Terms End – Kathi Wasserloos & Sandy Snow – Declaration of Candidacy 1/20 – 1/29/2010
There was a long discussion concerning the PWSFs and how to word the ballot question. Some residents wanted two questions. The five Board members reviewed the numerous issues with construction of a cell tower and were unable to come to a consensus.
Mr. Willeke moved to table the change in Article XIV-B Section 4. Mr. Lazar seconded the motion..
Roll call vote: Mr. Willeke, yes, Mr. Burnside, no; Schacht, no, Mr. Lazar, aye, Mr. Dubois, aye. The motion to table the change is passed 3 to 2.
Correspondences:
SWRPC Commission Highlights December 2009
Meeting Schedule & Critical Dates:
At 10:00pm, Mr. Schacht moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Dubois, and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Chauncey, Planning Assistant, On behalf of the Antrim Planning Board
| 
