ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
March 18, 2010 Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Scott Burnside (Chair) Diane Chauncey (Staff) Jenn Clifford (Alternate)
David Dubois (Member) Joe Koziell (Member) Jesse Lazar (Member) Peter Moore (Planner) Andrew Robblee (Member) CR Willeke (Vice-Chair)
Member & Staff Absent:
Public Attendees:
Annie Law (Resident) Loranne Block (Resident)
Gordon Webber (Selectman) Jack Kenworthy (Eolian)
Ben Pratt (Resident) John Soininen (Eolian)
Ellen Druan (Abutter) Richard Block (North Branch)
Brenda Schaefer (Abutter) John Kendall (Chair, ZBA)
Peter Mellen (Withington Estate) Robert Cleland (Resident)
Shelly Nelkens (Resident)
7:00 Review Period:
Election of Officers – The first order of business was to elect officers. Mr. Burnside and Mr. Willeke discussed the chair. Mr. Koziell moved Mr. Willeke for Chair of the Planning Board for 2010. Mr. Burnside seconded the motion. A unanimous vote for Mr. Willeke. Mr. Koziell nominated Mr. Burnside for Vice-Chair. Mr. Willeke seconded the motion. A unanimous vote for Mr. Burnside.
Swearing-In of new Planning Board Members – Jesse Lazar & David Dubois – done privately
Appoint alternates to sit for absent members: No alternates needed to be appointed.
Review the Minutes of the March 4, 2010 – The Board determined that it would be better to discuss the minutes following the deliberation
7:15 Public Meeting:
2010-03PB – Application request of Antrim Wind Energy, LLC for a Minor Site Plan Review for a Meteorological Tower on property located at 354 Keene Road, Antrim NH 03440 Tax Map 212, Lot 30 in the Rural Conservation District.
Chair Willeke opened the meeting at 7:15. He stated that the meeting was a continuation of the meeting of March 4, 2010. Chair Willeke asked the Board to introduce themselves and then had the Public Attendees do the same.
The Public Hearing had been closed at the end of the March 4, 2010 meeting. It was determined that the Board would deliberate on the application.
Chair Willeke asked Mr. Moore if there had been any new information submitted in a timely manner (any new information was to have been submitted by the end of the business day - 4:00pm on March 11, 2010).
Planner’s note: Section 9, Paragraph 9.4 of the Planning Board By-Laws sets forth the standard for submission of “information.”
9.4 Information regarding an application pending before the Board must be submitted to the planning staff one week prior to the scheduled meeting at which the information is to be considered, unless waived by a majority vote of the Board.
Mr. Moore said that he had received correspondence from Jack Kenworthy, which he did not read, but the letter had been emailed to the Board members. A commentary from Ellen Druan had been received via US Mail, and emailed to the Board. Ms. Elsa Volcker's letter of March 4 was read. It was in opposition to the met tower. Ms. Sarah Gorman had submitted letters at the March 4, 2010 meeting and had read some of it at the March 4 meeting - her letter objected to the Met Tower.
Mr. Burnside asked if all submissions had been made within the timeline.
Mr. Moore said that Ms. Loranne Carey-Block had submitted information at the Town Meeting (7:00pm) on March 11. Mr. Moore had portions of their information emailed to the Board members. Mr. Peter Beblowski had submitted a letter (as a resident) on March 18 (5:00pm) that objected to the Met Tower – Mr. Moore read the letter from Mr. Beblowski after advising the Chair of the March 18th receipt date, and getting his approval to do so.
Chair Willeke asked if the Board members had seen all the material and if there were any questions concerning the materials that had been presented.
Mr. Koziell said that all the information that had just been presented concerned the wind farm, not the met tower.
Mr. Burnside said that he concurred with Mr. Koziell and that the information was not about the met tower, that the concerns pertained more to their personal views of a wind farm.
The question of opening the floor to any new information was brought up again. Mr. Moore determined that the meeting could not be opened to the public attendees because the meeting would have had to have been re-noticed. It was procedurally incorrect to open the floor..
Mr. Kendall (ZBA Chair) said that the floor could not be opened to public comments.
Mr. Block wanted to make a point of order – according to Roberts Rules.
Chair Willeke said that the floor was not open at this time to the Public Attendees.
Mr. Block continued even though he was asked to stop. He wanted the correction to be made that there was specific information about the met tower in the submitted information. He further stated that the presence of a met tower would negatively affect the area.
Mr. Burnside asked if the Board wished to discuss the checklist for the Minor Site Plan Review (part of the decision making process). He stated that in his opinion, the checklist 8 B.1 (b) – should have 8 A. which should ask the question of use. If the use is not clearly approved –it would be kicked to the ZBA.
Chair Willeke said that in reading from the by-laws, he felt that the Chair at his discretion could open the floor.
Mr. Moore read from the PB by-laws (Sec.13, § 13.1-g) – clarifying that there is room for corrections, deficiencies, discrepancies.
Chair Willeke opened the floor to public comments on newly submitted information only (submitted by March 11, 2010 by 4pm).
The applicants (Eolian) wished to make a few comments. Mr. Burnside (former Chairman) said that the applicant had the right to speak.
Mr. Kenworthy asked for a procedural comment. The material submitted could be noted for corrections or deficiencies.
Mr. Soininen said that the new submissions should have been submitted 7 days in advance of the March 18, 2010 meeting
Ms. Nelkens does not understand the questioning.
There was a discussion of definitions.
Mr. Soininen stated that the met tower is an accessory to a public utility.
Chair Willeke repeated that only new information was to be considered.
Mr. Burnside said it must pertain to the information submitted.
Ms. Nelkens asked when Mr. Beblowski's letter had been submitted because she would like to comment on it. (submitted too late)
Chair Willeke said only new information would be considered.
Mr. Koziell clarified by saying that comments submitted prior to the deadline would be considered – anything else would not be allowed.
Mr. Robblee wished to "move on".
Mr. Willeke said that there was a narrow window in which to comment or ask question on any new information submitted.
Ms. Nelkens wanted to discuss a letter that Mr. Hardwick (local realtor) had submitted , and that she had gone with him to look at a piece of land that would potentially have a view of the wind turbines and…
She was interrupted because the letter was not new information.
Mr. Webber reinforced that the letter had been submitted weeks ago.
Ms. Druan said that she had said what she wanted to say at the first meeting.
After no more comments on new information, Chair Willeke closed the floor and the Planning Board continued deliberating on the application.
Checklist for Minor Site Plan Review: ( Twenty-five Requirements that must be satisfied, waived, or N/A. The Board reviews each item and a role call vote is required for waiver.)
Ms. Chauncey made more checklist copies for the Board members as well as some Public Attendees.
Item # 1 - 3 :Satisfied
Item #4: Nature or change: Addition or Change of Use – Applicants said: “The proposed met tower is a commercial activity to occur on property not currently used for commercial purposes.” from Eolian's Addendum to Application
Roll Call Vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes; Mr. Lazar, aye. Unanimous.
Item #5: Type of building: Residential, Commercial or Industrial – "The building is a special industrial structure to gather wind data for a potential public utility use." from Eolian Addendum to Application
There was a short discussion of the word “industrial” and if the word should be
“commercial” Mr. Burnside stated that it should be identified as a “commercial/industrial structure.”
Mr. Kenworthy explained that he had taken the language from the Zoning Ordinance - supplemental regulations section.
Roll Call Vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes: Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes; Mr. Lazar, aye. Unanimous.
Item #6: Area to used for commercial purposes
Mr. Burnside said that it was designated commercial on their diagram.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes, Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes; Mr. Lazar, yes. Unanimous
Item #7: Signed release for the Building Inspector to examine the property to see if it is suitable for the proposed use. Accessibility to land is satisfied
Item #8: Written statement describing the purpose of the proposed project and giving sufficient detail to determine compliance with Town Ordinances and Regulations
The application included a written statement describing the project.
Mr. Moore said that the item was left unchecked in order for the Board to determine the requirement.
Discussion:
Chair Willeke said that the structure will be removed.
Mr. Moore ventured to say that this section is where the discussion of the definition of a public utility should occur.
Mr. Koziell said that it was a temporary structure.
Mr. Burnside said that when the Zoning Ordinance was written – a public utility was allowed in the Rural Conservation District – the met tower is an allowed use.
Chair Willeke said that the PUC definition is not a land use definition.
Mr. Lazar said that the broader question was whether or not to grant any extension on the definition of a public utility. The applicant needs to be a public utility to grant this application.
Mr. Koziell said that it is not dealing with the wind turbines.
Mr. Moore – an accessory to a public utility
Mr. Koziell considered the item was satisfied.
Mr. Burnside made a motion saying that the met tower as an accessory to a public utility is an allowed use and referenced when the Zoning Ordinance was written.
Mr. Koziell seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Dubois , no; Mr. Lazar, no. Passes 4 – 2.
Items # 11 – 17 : N/A – do not apply
Item #19: Written recommendation of the Fire Safety Officer if requested. Satisfied
Items #22 - 23: N/A
Item #24: As required by RDS 36:56: The Board shall determine whether or not the development, if approved, could reasonably be construed as having the potential for regional impact. Doubt concerning regional impact shall be resolved in a determination that the development has a potential regional impact.
Mr. Moore said that his personal feeling was that the tower does not have regional impact but it was agreed that the wind farm would have regional impact.
Mr. Robblee said if it was anything other than a temporary structure, it would have regional impact.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes, Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes; Mr. Lazar, yes. Unanimous
Item #25: Addresses if the proposal has regional impact - N/A
Chair Willeke asked for other comments from the members
Mr. Dubois wanted to address Item #8. He said that height had not been mentioned but after a short discussion, he was okay with it.
Mr. Lazar said that a public utility had no height restriction
Mr. Moore said that if the Planning Board approved the application, there could be conditions on the Notice of Decision such as: ZBA to approve the height
The question was asked if the RSA 672:1, Section 3.D. (on renewable energy) was condition.
Mr. Burnside stated that the RSA helped him make his decision.
Mr. Lazar said that he did not feel that it was a public utility by the standard definition.
Mr. Burnside asked if he meant the PUC definition.
Mr. Lazar wants this changed.
Mr. Lazar said "that the PUC describes what it is, but that the statute should be interpreted. It is a complicated entity. The Rural Conservation District should be a district for nature. There should be not steel or high-rise. The people in the town wanted to have the district and what carries weight is what else could be a public utility - if that definition was adhered to - I would have to accept a coal burning plant, which would fall under the same category. Essentially, if the application is accepted, it should be conditional and that the ZBA would have to deliberate on the use and approve their use as a Public Utility. Our intent should be that the definition is correct."
I don't feel that the applicant is a public utility by the standard definition, the PUC definition. The district is zoned in such a way that whatever the PUC statute is at any given time, the district must regulate accordingly. The more you dig the more arguments you find. I do not see one that is compelling enough to say that you should not look at the first definition. Public utility is a complicated legal entity and regulated by the public utility commission. I don't see any reason to look at the definition again.
I think broadly the intent of the district is to preserve nature, to have a district that doesn't have any steel industrial structures. It may not be possible to enact this to an infinite extent as the land is not in conservation.
What carries weight to me when I think about redefining public utlity is that I would be forced to accept a coal burning power plant in any district. Since it generates power, it would fall under the same category. I feel that if we accept this application, we should have the zoning board deliberate on whether the applicant is a public utility. Our intent should be to interpret the definition of public utility correctly.
Mr. Moore said that as the Town Planner and as his responsibility to the Board , he wanted to express the opinion of Town Counsel and information he had acquired from Eric Steltzer, Energy Policy Analyst from NH OEP, concerning renewable energy.
Mr. Burnside asked why the information had not been submitted earlier. He stated that "we could be getting into trouble with new information".
Mr. Moore asked, "Is it my role as planner to defer to the 7-day information?"
Mr. Burnside said that everything was supposed to be cut off before the checklist review. The application could be starting from scratch. He accepted Mr. Lazar's view, but he should have made a motion on #8. The Board needed to move forward on with the information that had been submitted in a timely way.
Mr. Koziell said that the met tower was a temporary structure and that it will not decide the public utility question. What is in front of the Board now is the Met Tower application.
Mr. Burnside made a motion to add a condition the approval of the proposal. The condition could read that the use does not carry over to a future application of an industrial wind farm as an allowed use. It would be a clarification of allowed use.
Mr. Robblee asked if the meeting should be continued.
Mr. Lazar said that you cannot grant this application and make as a condition that the use doesn't carry over.)
Mr. Dubois said that it was an accessory to a public utility.
Mr. Burnside said that all the information has been presented.
Mr. Burnside said that he was trying to compromise.
Chair Willeke said that the intention had not been to cut off Mr. Moore's opinion.
Mr. Moore stated that his opinion is that the board should not rush to approve the application. It is a very complex issue which he has been studying. There are real questions such as is a commercial scale wind turbine a public utility, and any accessory to it, and a permitted use. He then referred to the generation of power or public utility high tension wires. He stated that when the Zoning Ordinance was established in 1989, the creators had no idea that wind turbines would be a possibility. The 2001 Master Plan bears out that people want to keep an area of the town in conservation. As far as the interpretation of a public utility - should that continue to another meeting. He said that it will be contested. There is a safety net in that for people who want
to see it go. The process must be preserved in the interest of both sides – interested in renewable energy – but as Town Planner, he must make sure the process is correct.
Chair Willeke said that he has tried to look at all definitions, and he felt that it could be challenged either way. It is the Planning Board's job to make a decision on the application.
Mr. Burnside said that there had been enough deliberation.
His motion for a condition of approval was questioned.
Mr. Burnside withdrew his motion for the condition of approval.
Mr. Burnside moved to approve the application (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). Mr. Koziell seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Dubois , no; Mr. Lazar, no. Motion Passes 4 – 2.
Mr. Moore said that the application had been approved. The Notice of Decision would be prepared within five business days.
Business Meeting:
Withington Estate - #2010-01PB - Lot Line Adjustment and Annexation -
The signing of the mylar and plans for case #2010-01PB had been delayed because Diane Chauncey questioned the parcel #241-034. Mr. Mellen explained the delineation of the lot to the Planning Board and after a long discussion; the mylar and plans were signed.
Workshops, Trainings: Spring Conference – NH OEP - Saturday, May 8, 2010.
New Business from the Floor:
The Board members discussed reviewing the definitions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Minutes of March 4, 2010 – It was agreed that the minutes were not written in the usual manner and the Board would wait until the April 1, 2010 meeting to approve the minutes.
At 9:00pm, Mr. Koziell moved to adjourn. Mr. Burnside seconded it. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Chauncey, On Behalf of the Antrim Planning Board
| 
