ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
March 4, 2010 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Scott Burnside (Chair) Diane Chauncey (Staff) David Dubois (Alternate)
Jesse Lazar (Alternate) Steve Schacht (ExOfficio) Peter Moore (Planner)
Andrew Robblee (Member) Kathi Wasserloos (Member) CR Willeke (Vice-Chair)
Member & Staff Absent:
Joe Koziell (Member) Sandy Snow (Member) Kathi Wasserloos (Member)
Jenn Clifford (Alternate)
Public Attendees:
Annie Law (Resident) Loranne Block (resident)
Janice Longgood (Resident) Marshall Gale (Resident)
Gordon Webber ( Selectman) Jack Kenworthy (Eolian)
Ben Pratt (Resident) Drew Kenworthy (Eolian)
Peter Hopkins (Building Inspector) John Soininen (Eolian)
Ellen Druan (Abutter) Sarah Gorman (Resident)
Richard Block (Resident) Peter Beblowski (ConCom Committee)
Mark Schaefer (Resident)
Brenda Schaefer (Resident)
Elsa Volker (Resident
7:00 Review Period:
Appoint alternates to sit for absent members: Mr. Lazar sit for the absent Mr. Koziell;
Mr. Dubois to sit for the absent Mr. Snow.
Review the Minutes of the February 18, 2010 -
7:15 Public Hearing:
Application request of Antrim Wind Energy, LLC for a Minor Site Plan Review for a Meteorological Tower on property located at 354 Keene Street, Antrim, NH 03440 Tax Map 212, Lot 30 in the Rural Conservation District.
Chair Burnside opened the public meeting and explained the procedure. The public notice was read and announced that the notice had been in the Villager on Friday, February 19. All abutters had been notified via return/receipt mail. All had been returned except Mr. Ott’s. There were no comments previous to the meeting by abutters. Chair Burnside asked Mr. Kenworthy to present their proposal.
Mr. Kenworthy introduced himself, and presented a power point presentation to explain the Minor Site Plan Review. These are some of the points from his presentation:
The purpose of the tower is to collect data via a temporary structure.
The data is to determine the feasibility of a future wind farm.
The tower is a completely self-contained tower.
The tower comes from the leading supplier of met towers in the world. More than 100 have been installed in New England.
The tower is 196.85 ft tall.
The tower consists of 10-inch diameter tubular steel sections for the bottom half and 8” diameter tubular steel sections for the top half.
The tower sits on a 9 square foot steel base plate; there is no foundation.
The tower is supported by 24 guy wires attached to the tower. Rock anchor types are used.
The tower is engineered to withstand any wind conditions and ice conditions that could occur in N.E.
The tower is outfitted with anemometers and wind direction vanes at three levels, attached with steel mounting booms. The tower also has sensors to measure temp, air pressure and relative humidity (to help filter the data). The sensors are attached via signal wires to a logger which is mounted to the lowest section of the tower ( powered by a battery and a small solar panel).
Daily review of data quality and easy alerts if there is any problem with the tower.
Schematics were shown to depict the tower – the base, tower layout, site layout with standard footprint.
The site is accessed by an ATV road – no new roads. The tower will be removed completely at the completion of the study period.
Pictures: access road and access road and vehicle, rock anchors, dog and rock anchors (depicted how the anchors were placed into the rock; base plate and tower in horizontal position, lift picture (showed how the pole was lifted; took 7 hours to lift – lift is removed after erected). Monthly site visits to detect any complicating issues; ATV at base; gin pole; logger with signal wires; tower up.
No additional permits are required from state regulatory agencies
An FAA determination of NO Hazard has been obtained and there is no requirement for lighting on the tower.
Tower: emits no light; no noise; no utilities required for tower - completely self contained
On private property
No public safety hazard
Site Plan (sketch shown):
Ott parcel – red line showing access
No adjacent parcels are visible
Special industrial structure
Site Plan Requirements
Allowed use as an accessory use to a public utility
Ordinance Compliance:
Article IX B 1:e - public utility is a permitted use
Special industrial structure – Art XIV
Description of Special industrial structure - - listed compliance regs
Yard requirements satisfied
EAPC Wind Energy letter – get gist
Waiver Requests - due to limited nature of the project impact, and the lack of requirements, a number of waivers are requested
Antrim Master Plan - On another level, the met tower falls within the spirit of the ordinance – states the need for encouraging energy efficient patterns of development.
Nothing about the temp tower that affects health, safety or welfare.
RSA 362:1-F – best interest of the public
Mr. Kenworthy thanked the Public Attendees for listening to the presentation.
Chair Burnside asked for questions
Mr. Dubois began the discussion with the definition of a public utility. He said that according to the Public Utility Commission (PUC) definition – the nature of the business is to generate power and sell it to the grid, and that the companies that are in that status are exempt. Mr. Dubois wanted to know if Eolian has that status – or, will they apply for status as a public utility as defined in RSA 74:F.
Mr. Kenworthy – with respect to status – in the original application – there was no objection on the basis of use. This application is not pertaining to land use. He read from RSA 83:f (which relates to utility property tax), utilities are defined not "public utility".
Mr. Soininen said that the common definition of a utility is to provide service to a community. The PUC definition pertains to regulating public utilities to determine that customers are not overcharged. He went on to say the Antrim Zoning Ordinance uses the common definition of public utility
Chair Burnside asked if the board had read the correspondence that had gone back and forth between the attorneys (all emails and correspondence had been sent to the Board). He said that the Department of Revenue Administration definition of a utility and the land use definition are different. Chair Burnside felt that the intent of the ordinance must be looked at. In RSA 672, it states that renewable energy facilities are allowed and should not be prohibited. The PUC definition is different. The Board needs to try its best to unmesh the conflicts that the RSAs present. The Board must look carefully at both sides in order to make a decision. When the Board makes the decision, either side has the right to appeal.
Mr. Kenworthy said that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in 1989 included the definition which would have included all of what was changed to exclude of the PUC.
Chair Burnside asked if there were any questions from the Board. Did Eolian wish to say anything else?
Mr. Kenworthy said that in RSA 676:13, the Building Inspector decides the question of use. Reasons for denial need to be sited. The question is - was a decision made on use. Use is not before the Board, because that has not been appealed.
Chair Burnside said that the issue of use is open. Site plan should have been submitted first. The decision not made either way on use.
Mr. Robblee asked the question - was the building permit denied because a site plan review was necessary.
Mr. Robblee and Chair Burnside concurred that the requirement of evaluation of site plan was necessary.
Mr. Soininen questioned the procedure of yes it is allowed, no it is not. He felt that Antrim Wind Energy, LLC (Eolian) had gone through the proper steps. They understood that a site plan review is required, but in the interest of a linear process, the building inspector should have acknowledged all the reasons for denying a permit What is before the board is the site plan review .
Mr. Dubois asked Mr. Soininen if it was his contention that because the building inspector did not state use or height in the rejection letter that it was assumed that they had been approved.
Mr. Soininen said that his contention is that the application had been submitted for review based on understanding that the site plan review is for an accessory to a public utility.
Mr. Kenworthy said that he is not sure about procedure.
Chair Burnside explained that the bldg inspector, in his view has not been given the authority to determine use.
Mr. Kenworthy said that he thought that was a gray area but a decision has to be made one way or another. The requirement is to make a decision. He said that this was a procedural element – he wanted to understand the position of the Board. He felt that the question of use was decided. The met tower is an accessory to a public utility.
Chair Burnside said that the Planning Board will make the determination. The site plan review had been placed in the lap of the Planning Board and he explained the role of the Board from the perspective of the Chair.
Mr. Kenworthy said that Board will look at the use based on the merits.
The rest of the Board concurred with the Chair.
Mr. Moore stated that in his position that Planner and the Building Inspector, the site plan review must come first. The Planning Board's role is to carry out site plan regulations for the town. The met tower is a commercial activity so the decision had been made that a site plan review was necessary.
Mr. Kenworthy said that it was a procedural legal argument. Ultimately in their read of the law, they felt that they are doing the correct thing.
Chair Burnside said that the Building Inspector followed the correct procedure.
Mr. Robblee said that anything other than a residential home goes for a site plan review.
At 8:10PM , Chair Burnside was prepared to open the floor, but the application hadn't been accepted yet. This evoked another discussion of the definition of a public utility.
Some of the thoughts and opinions expressed by the Board Members and Applicant:
RSA 672:1 - the State of NH encourages renewable energy
The PUC has a definition for public utility
The Rural Conservation District should allow public utilities
Smaller facilities are treated differently and not necessarily public utilities
Size should not be a factor.
If the PUC had given the project a public status, it could be seen differently
In the 1989 Antrim Zoning Ordinance, public utility was already there.
Water power was always allowed.
Independent power producers have been pulled out of the definition.
The met tower is an accessory to the wind farm.
The intent of the allowed uses was written previous to the PUC definition of a Public Utility.
Mr. Willeke asked if the application is complete.
Chair Burnside asked if the use is granted, the question of use still needs to be answered.
Ms. Druan said that the rights (of the Public Attendees) are denied because they cannot speak
Mr. Robblee The decision on whether it is an allowed use will have to be made on the evidence presented. We can move on with the application if we accept the application.
Mr. Kenworthy Is use determined by acceptance of the application
Mr. Moore Use isn't determined by acceptance of application, it is determined by approval and can be deferred to ZBA.
Mr. Kenworthy. I thought decisions of use were made by the planning board? How many boards am I going to have to go before, before someone makes a decision on the issue of use.
Chair Burnside said if we decide its not a permitted use it goes to the zba. If we decide it is a permitted use, then we can move to a public hearing. Anyone in objection to that has the right to appeal.
Mr. Robblee said if we can determine that it is a permitted use we can accept the application here, however we can still deny the application at public hearing. So, we can accept it as a permitted use and open up the public hearing, and after hearing arguments from both sides decide on whether we approve or disapprove the application. Your application could be accepted tonight and still disapproved.
Mr. Kenworthy said that clarified things.
Ms. Block said it sounds to me like you just said something to the effect that if you accept the application you will accept the use.
Mr. Robblee said that is correct we cannot accept the application unless we accept the use.
Mr. Schacht motioned to accept the application. Mr. Willeke seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Name |
Yes |
No |
Steve Schacht |
x |
|
CR Willeke |
x |
|
Scott Burnside |
x |
|
Andrew Robblee |
x |
|
Jesse Lazar |
|
x |
David Dubois |
x |
|
Public Hearing :
Abutters in favor of the proposal: None
Abutters in opposition of the proposal:
Richard Block (not a direct abutter) but reading with permission of a direct abutter, a letter from Mr. Earley who objected to the met tower.
Marshall Gale – wondering why tower has already been erected?
Sarah Gorman – didn’t they erect the tower before they had a building permit?
Peter Hopkins (building inspector) explained that the tower is up and by state statute the the tower's construction would be at their own (Eolian's) risk
Sarah Gorman – Public Utility status – She began to read from her letter. She feels that they are trying to circumvent Zoning Ordinance and paving the way for industrial wind towers. – objects that belong in industrial area – to pave way for this is to sell out the neighborhood – value of property destroyed – town is looking for a quick buck – destroy conservation area to line their own pockets – what would be good for me is that the town should curb their spending – not a utility yet – you want to help these guys out – beyond me – cedar swamp – steep slope – selling out the future of the town – want to leave something for the children – two or three people might make money on this – selling out to snake oil salesman – if
you approve this – there will be a secession from the town.
Janice Longgood – disagrees that they are a public utility and her property value will be decreased.
Ellen Druan – Letters from JK – didn’t like the letters – not for them – 100-acres – constantly calling me – not good for me – these men will do anything – why is Ott never here – building a road over pipes – commercial property – always been an environmentalist – tries to explain her position – does not want the wind towers- the town should protect the people.
Mark Schaefer– looks out at entire ridge line – can see from kitchen – what is the reason for the tower – saying yes to the wind farm -
Chair Burnside explained that the application is for the met tower not the wind farm.
Mark Schaefer – last corner of Hillsboro County will be turned into an industrial area
comm. wind far - - you are giving them the lead to put in the wind farm – delaing with a commercial wind farm – my land is going to go to them – posterity here we go – goes against all that we live there for – met tower
Chair Burnside said there is the possibility that from the data collected, them may find out that the project is not feasible.
Mark Schaefer – paving the way…. pretty personal.
Mr. Soininen said that it is not conservation land, not public land, but rather private property. The Zoning Ordinance spells out what can and can not be done. The application has been done appropriately.
Mr. Schaefer – not a public utility.
Chair Burnside asked for order and for the attendees to speak one at a time.
Mr. Schaefer said that the whole process has been very difficult. He said that he felt that if the wind farm was allowed everything that he moved here for is out the window. He agreed with the nimby attitude, but he felt that they’re going to glean the money and the energy produced will not be sold to Antrim. He had sat at the farm in Lempster and heard it. All of us abutters will feel this – they will glean the money and the energy will be sold not to Antrim – our bills will go up.
Chair Burnside said that he understood the frustration of the abutters.
Mr. Schaefer passionately explained that he did not want a commercial wind farm with 410' wind turbines.
Mr. Kenworthy explained that most of the turbines are American made.
Chair Burnside explained that the application concerned the met tower only. He would shut everyone down – stay within application.
Someone said that Tuttle Hill is the last pristine place in Hillsborough County.
Chair Burnside declared that he would eject anyone out of the room if they speak out of turn, and that if the police were necessary to assist, he would call for their assistance.
Mr. Schaefer sincerely apologized.
Ms. Druan explained how the meeting should be run and that wind towers would severely affect her life.
Mr. Robblee said that what the Public Attendees said was just as powerful as what Eolian said. He was trying hard to take it all in.
Chair Burnside can see entire tower from his house
Annie Law asked how he would like to see a wind farm.
Chair Burnside said that he would not mind.
Mr. Cleland said that he looks directly at site and if it is allowed, the area will be destroyed.
9:00pm
Chair Burnside said that - as a Board that we can not rule on abutters' emotions –the Board must weigh out everything – appeal of the decision is possible for either side.
Ms. Block explained that his property is directly across from site. It were more than the tower – shadow flicker would destroy his life. He had come to ask the Board to defer to the ZBA. He wanted to know if it was already accepted as an accepted use. He said that he thought that the frustration is the way in which ( very emotional) everything could be destroyed by these people. He said that Tuttle Mt was a central geographic feature, and listed numerous places from which it can be seen. He listed the places that are conserved by Audubon, dominant wildlife reservoir, open space report. A number one priority is to preserve – (the Land) shouldn’t be fragmented.
Mr. Kenworthy said he had two points:
1. Mr. Ott could build 30 houses on the met tower lot
2. Allowing the met tower does not mean that the wind farm will be built. There is
an extensive permitting process.
Mr. Soininen said that he understands that it is an emotional issue, but that the Board needed to look at the question that is before the Board. The met tower is not a public utility but rather an accessory to a public utility.
Ms. Gorman – She listed multiple issues that concerned her:
It is not a public utility.
Disrespect for the ZBA
Emotional because of physical well-being, health
Value of property plummeting so that a tax revolt is a possibility
Industrial wind complex
Should not go on Tuttle Mt
Most special place to try and protect
Fine line between construction and destruction – no turning back
Trees will grow back
Just so a couple of guys will make some money
Mr. Kenworthy said that he realized it was an emotional issue, and he was not demeaning to people. The financial and economic impact answers would come in the future. There are few areas that have the traits that this parcel has. An exploration must be made in order to make a determination.
Mr. Block said that every acre he owned faces Tuttle Hill. He made the following points:
Does not agree with the way in which the procedure has occurred
Not classifiable as a public utility
1989 – wind farms were not around – did not exist
Eolian had been disingenuous from the beginning
His review of the history of Antrim Wind Energy, LLC approached the Planning Board– does know what to believe – Eolian vacillating
Most valuable area in town
Destroying ridge top
Urge to go back to ZBA
Mr. Kenworthy explained that there are no energy producer in NH other than PSNH. The definition is a land use question and he said that it is an allowable use. He explained that Eolian has been transparent from the beginning of the process. They have been placed in a defensive position. They have two pending applications. they have taken two different tacks. They had taken the initial advice of filing under the Small Wind Energy Ordinance. That was not necessarily correct. They have been transparent concerning their intentions.
Mr. Block said that it was not a public utility and it should not be permitted.
Mr. Beblowski said that he would like to say a few words about the passion. The people who have spoken have owned the property for over 20 years. He then read the purpose of the Rural Conservation District.: The Rural Conservation District is intended to protect, conserve and preserve the remote mountainous portions of Antrim from excessive development pressures and/or activities that would be detrimental to the unique environmental characteristics and qualities of this district and detract from the peaceful enjoyment and tranquility that this district affords local residents. He then discussed the road and the wet areas that may be on the road.
Mr. Soininen said that the parcel could be divided into an 80-lot subdivision. He defined the common use of public utility from a dictionary.
Mr. Beblowski wanted the definition struck from the minutes.
Chair Burnside said that attendees could speak until 9:45.
Mr. Webber said that he supported the approval of Antrim Wind Energy and that the Eolian members should not be referred to as snake oil salespersons. He said that he took offense to the suggestion that a company can not come in and make money on a commercial venture. He said that the suggestion that the electricity produced will not benefit Antrim - the electricity will all go into the grid. He also felt that a good argument could be made that they (Antrim wind Energy, LLC) could be a public utility. In conclusion, he would like to see the building permit approved.
Mr. Block felt that the definition of public utility should be seriously looked at. He also made the following points:
Had always heated with wood
Always been an environmentalist
Had been a member of the Conservation Committee
Bad idea to destroy the environment to install a questionable entity
Spain has generated 1/3 of their wind power and their carbon levels have still gone up
Countries that have wind power are buying up coal
We in Antrim have the opportunity to protect what we have
ZBA and Planning Board should watch out for the people of Antrim
Our lively hood is in jeopardy
Not in the best interest of the town
Mr. Kenworthy said that the impact of wind and carbon is a huge topic. He explained the wind capacity factor and the nature of wind technology. Coal does not back up wind power in China. Their company is trying to ma a substantial change by going forward with wind energy. Property values have differing opinions concerning impact.
Mr. Soininen said that what had been said at this meeting is not indicative of the population as a whole. Antrim voted in favor of the NH Climate Change Initiative for using 25% renewable energy by 2025.
Chair Burnside asked if there were any new information to be presented.
Mr. Block said that Eolian had faulty research and that wind development has nothing to do with efficiency and that it is being done because of the massive subsidies. He concluded by saying that we will be paying more in electricity.
Ms. Gorman said that the Zoning Ordinance and the people should be respected. Mr. Webber should not have spoken to influence the Board. If it were on Patten Hill, he could speak, but not about Tuttle Hill. She said that her physical well being was being destroyed. Conservation should be greedy and self-important. The land fill should be tapped for methane; the dairy farm's methane should be utilized. This will destroy all that we have fought for, think about our children. The essence of zoning should be thought out here. The health and well being of the citizens of the town should be considered.
Ms. Block said that a lot has been said should be considered within the context of what it is.
Mrs. Schaefer said that she is opposed to the application and that it would be fought and cost the town thousands of dollars.
At 10:00, Chair Burnside closed the Public Hearing. The continuance of the site plan review was set to a date certain of March 18, 2010.
Business Meeting:
Approval of February 18, 2010 minutes - Mr. Dubois moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Schacht seconded the motion and they were approved by all.
Correspondences:
Contoocook Valley Transportation Company - Winter 2010 Newsletter - FYI
Workshops, Trainings:
New Business from the Floor:
Discussion of Withington Plat for signing - it was determined the Ms. Chauncey would review the metes and bounds of the 4 tracts.
Review potential survey questions, to be placed on questionnaire for public consideration, concerning mood of residents for potential wind and cell towers. Survey table to be positioned post-polling area Tuesday, March 9th.
Recognition – Departing Board Members Kathi Wasserloos & Sandy Snow
At 11:00pm, Mr. Robblee moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Schacht, and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Chauncey, Planning Assistant, On behalf of the Antrim Planning Board
| 
