ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
January 6, 2011 Meeting
Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Ordinances
Members & Staff Present:
Scott Burnside (Vice-Chair) Diane Chauncey (Staff) David Dubois (Member)
Joe Koziell (Member) Jesse Lazar (Member) Peter Moore (Planner) Gordon Webber (Ex-Officio) Andrew Robblee (Member) CR Willeke (Chair)
Member & Staff Absent:
Stephen Schacht (Alternate)
Public Attendees: (71 - listed are the signed in people or Diane Recognized)
Shelly Nelkens Jack Kenworthy Jon Soininen Ray Ledgerwood
Sarah Gorman Brian Murphy Dave Boule Martha Pinello
Donna Lyon Peter Beblowski James Hankard Britta Moore
Ian Johnson Marie Harriman Michelle Apkarian Lynn Burdette
Clif Burdette Samuel Apkarian Chris Condon Ann Enman
Wes Enman Robert Cleland Annie Law Jamison Burt
Shauna Burt Benjamin Blakely Melissa Chapman Molly Moore Lazar
Tom Davis Keith Lingor Keith Wolsiefer John Robertson
Janice Longgood Elsa Voelcker Douglas Stone Susan Bartlett
Bob Bernstein Richard Block Loranne Block Brendan Block
Kevin Devine Bob Edwards Janet McEwan Nancy Knowles
Frank Wallace Brenda Schaefer Mark Schaefer Dave Kirkpatrick
Beth Merrill Arthur Merrill John Hatter Vincent Lyon
Mr. Klinger Ron Haggett Fred Ward Sue Cheetham
Ron Cheetham Benjamin Pratt Dave Duffy Isaac Lombard
Melissa Smith
7:00 PM - Review Period:
" Appoint alternates to sit for absent members
" Review the Minutes of December 16 (Mr. Webber moved to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Koziell, all ayes to approve) and December 23, 2010 (Mr. Webber moved to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Koziell, all ayes to approve).
7:30 PM - Public Hearing - Pursuant to RSA 675:3 and 675:7, the Antrim Planning Board will present proposed Amendments/Changes for Antrim Zoning Ordinance. And, pursuant to IRC/IBC R108.2, proposed changes to the Building Permit Application Fee Schedule presented for adoption by the Planning Board / Board of Selectmen. *
Business Meeting:
" Cases continued from Public Meeting on December 16, 2010:
Case - #2010-09PB - Application request of Jane & Burt Lauber for Minor Subdivision of property located on Pierce Lake Road (Tax Map 214, Lot 098), Antrim, NH 03440 in the Rural District.
Case - #2010-10PB - Application request of Jane & Burt Lauber for Minor Subdivision of property located on Pierce Lake Road (Tax Map 214, Lot 099), Antrim, NH 03440 in the Rural District.
Mr. Koziell moved to continue the case until January 20, 2011. Mr. Robblee seconded. All ayes to continue the meeting.
Chair Willeke opened the meeting at 7:25pm. The meeting had been moved from the Little Town Hall to the upstairs larger Town Hall (Rick Seavey had quickly set up the room). Chair Willeke introduced himself. Each member introduced himself.
Mr. Moore read the Public Notice that had been posted in The Villager on December 24, 2011.
Chair Willeke explained that the meeting was a Public Hearing to hear input of the Antrim residents. He asked that all those who wished to speak must stand and state their name. He further explained that the attendees should be cordial and that the Chair would moderate and if there were any problems or unruliness, he would not hesitate to call the Police for assistance.
Each article was read by Chair Willeke. A handout was available to all. The italicized underlined section are from the handout. The public attendees who commented on the articles are listed. Some speakers presented letters to the Board. Those letters are part of these minutes.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Changes & Amendments
As proposed by Antrim Planning Board Members as of 12/23/2010
1. Amendments to Article III "Definitions"
Public Utility - proposal by the board to add a definition for Public Utility was tabled by vote of the board.
Add
Renewable Energy Facility: A power generation facility greater than 100 kilowatts in rated nameplate capacity and powered by solar, wind, geothermal or hydro-kinetic sources, and delivering electricity, heat, or both in commercial quantities for on-site use and/or distribution to the utility grid. It shall also include any equipment required for the collection of data and/or testing to determine the viability of such renewable energy facilities, as well as any accessory and appurtenant uses. Energy facilities utilizing bio-mass and other combustibles are not permitted
Mr. Beblowski asked for a clarification - was the "renewable energy facility" commercial or industrial?
Mr. Block noted that biomass had been specifically left out. He said that biomass could potentially be a wise renewable energy and was worth looking at. He suggested to the Board that they research it.
Ms. Gorman questioned why methane had been left out of the definition. She felt that burning methane could create energy for the town as well as create a profit for the town.
Mr. Hankard questioned what benefit [renewable energy] would be to Antrim and its citizens. Will there be a break in property taxes? It seemed to him that the definition was geared toward Eolian, and he did not see an inherent benefit to the town?
Chair Willeke said a definition was needed. It would be better for those who came to the town with a proposal to have a definition in the Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Hankard stated that he supported Mr. Block and Ms. Gorman - further study is needed.
Vice-Chair Burnside said the Antrim Master Plan has directed the Planning Board to encourage renewable energy. Biomass could always be added in the future.
Mr. Webber said that the benefit to the town would not be in electricity. Eolian would become the largest taxpayer in the town. Antrim could then have a break in its taxes or buy a new Fire Engine.It would clearly be a benefit to the town.
Mr. Robblee explained that the proposed amendments would be on the March ballot. The decision would be made by the voters of Antrim - not the Planning Board.
Mr. Volker questioned the equipment necessary and stated that non-invasive testing should be done first.
Ms. Nelkens questioned the "100 kilowatts". What if she wanted to do something renewable at her own home.
Mr. Bernstein spoke about biomass as a proven current technology that was well suited to a forested region, and created jobs - it should be a first choice..
Chair Willeke said that the Small Wind Ordinance (Article XIV-D) would apply to a home owner application.
Ms. Nelkens wanted to know if her renewable energy would be limited to the 35' above the tree canopy, but would not apply to the new definition.
Mr. Johnson stated that the first commercial wind farm had been on Crotched Mountain.
Mr. Bernstein spoke.
Mr. Kendall asked if renewable energy were to be a permitted use what would determine the setbacks and restrictions.
Chair Willeke stated that the discussion at this time concentrated on definitions.
Mr. Koziell reiterated that this part of the Public Hearing concerned definitions.
Vice-Chair Burnside explained that as the height of the tower increased so would the number of feet for the setback.
Mr. Kendall asked if the Planning Board members were aware of the restrictions.
Vice-Chair Burnside stated that the Planning Board was very aware.
Chair Willeke said that although this part of the concerned definitions, the point regarding setbacks and restrictions would be noted.
Mr. Block said that something this big should have its own article. It would need to be looked at very carefully and that the town should be able to have control over renewable energy facilities. He further stated that the definition had vagueness and it would open the town to problems. He stated that the Board should wait.
Ms. Harriman wanted to know if the definition was for commercial or for individuals.
Chair Willeke said that it was for a commercial application.
Mr. Haggett wished to know if the State had a definition for renewable energy.
Mr. Volker felt that the definition was extremely vague. He thought that each renewable energy should have its own definition and that they should not be lumped together.
Chair Willeke explained that the Board had begun by discussing just wind, but wanted to expand the definition.
Ms. Nelkens asked if there were a size limit.
Chair Willeke said that there was not a size limit in the definition.
Ms. Gorman said (proposals) could be endlessly huge.
Chair Willeke understood that some people wanted the definition to be more specific.
Mr. Robblee said that, ironically, a great deal of effort had gone in to keeping the definition simple.
Mr. Kendall stated that the Planning Board consisted of a thankless group of people. The Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board had worked together on changes to the Zoning Ordinance (at a joint meeting in the summer on July 15th) Both the ZBA and the PB realize that the town residents needed to vote on the issue.
Mr. Beblowski said that Mr. Kendall was articulate [in explaining his thoughts] but he felt that in general what had been brought forward could bring great openings into the development of the Rural Conservation Area.
Ms. Harriman stated that she had written many definitions for higher level documents and that the definitions should be very generic. "When - when down to nuts and bolts - then get into specifics".
Mr. Kenworthy began to speak about 100 kw turbines…and stated that the Lempster turbines were 2000 kw.
Ms. Pinello stated that as a point of order - in order to speak, a person must be on checklist- or ask the audience if permission should be granted to speak
2. Change to Article III - "Definitions" - to change incorrect reference
Cluster Housing Development: An area of land, controlled by a landowner or landowners organization developed as a single entity for a number of dwelling units in accordance with Supplemental Regulations Article XIV, Paragraph O. (add) Article XIV-C (Amended March 11, 2003)
Housekeeping /clarification
3. Amend Article V - "Highway Business District"
The initial proposal by Planning Board to re-define the Highway Business District boundaries for both Routes 9 and 202 were tabled by vote of the board at their 12/23 meeting for the 2011 warrant pending further study by the board.
Chair Willeke explained that the Board had discussed changing the Highway Business District from the current 1000' to frontage on 9 or 202 would make the entire lot Highway Business, but the Board wanted to research the idea, and had decided to table it.
Ms. Block said that there had been a committee to around three years ago which had discussed the Highway Business districts. She stated that she would be willing to serve on a committee again.
Chair Willeke repeated that the proposal had been tabled.
Vice-Chair Burnside said that the proposal had been tabled but the Board had discussed redefining the district. The North Branch side of Route 9 would become Rural Conservation. This would create more space for business on the other side of Route 9.
Mr. Kendall asked where the 1000' came from and felt that it created problems.
Ms. Gorman wanted to know who wrote the initial proposal. She said that it would be very inappropriate whoever idea it is and what were they thinking.
Vice-Chair Burnside said that the Board had tabled it.
Mr. Klinger asked if that switch were made - what about him
Mr. Robblee said that this is why it had been tabled and that the meeting should move on.
4. Change Article V - "Highway Business District" - to change incorrect reference
Section 1
nn. Manufactured Housing Units (per Article XIV, Section W)
It should read -
nn. Manufactured Housing Units (per Article XIV, Section U)
Housekeeping - to make the Ordinance clearer.
5. Amend Articles IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, & IX
Add ARTICLE V - Highway Business District, Section B, 1 - Principal Permitted Uses
ARTICLE VII - Rural District, Section B, 1 - Principal Permitted Uses
ARTICLE IX - Rural Conservation District, Section B, 1 - Principal Permitted Uses
Add Renewable Energy Facility to - Special Exception uses (See Article XIII)
ARTICLE IV - Village Business District, Section B, 3 - Special Exception uses
ARTICLE VI - Residential District, Section B, 3 - Special Exception uses
ARTICLE VIII - Lakeside Residential District, Section B, 3 - Special Exception uses
Mr. Enman stated that a ton of time could be saved - if the language had not been decided - how did it make sense to move forward.
Mr. Webber said that the language in the ballot would clarify that.
Vice Chair Burnside said that it would be spelled out in the ballot.
Mr. Volker wanted to know the difference between a permitted use and a Special Exception.
Chair Willeke explained the definition of each.
Mr. Bernstein questioned Chair Willeke's explanation.
Mr. Haggett said that if it is not a permitted use, the application would need to come before the ZBA as a Special Exception.
Mr. Block said that he had talked with many people around the state and that there was just one universal word used -UNBELIEVABLE. No other town in NH had a regulation that would anything anywhere. He explained the difference between a small wind turbine and a 100 kilowatt turbine.
Chair Willeke said that the Board had heard that information.
Mr. Block said that for the past year and a half the met tower has been discussed. There are presently two cases in Superior Court. He said that although the attendees had been told that only met towers were to be discussed, Eolian had been able to…
Chair Willeke asked Mr. Block to stop. He did not stop talking. Chair Willeke asked him again to stop. He did not. Chair Willeke left the room to get the Police.
Mr. Block continued to talk.
The Board stopped listening.
Mr. Block left on his own.
Other people left.
Mr. Hankard wanted to know why Mr. Block was asked to leave.
Mr. Webber said that he would not stop talking and was out of order.
Mr. Hankard stated that the definition was too general and that he loved the Rural Conservation District.
Ms. Gorman read a prepared statement that she wished to have added to the record. She stated that she had written the statement with passion. She read her statement which was in opposition the proposal.
Mr. Koziell said that an informal survey had been completed by 100 voters and that from the survey, residents were overwhelmingly in favor of renewable energy.
Ms. Gorman stopped reading her statement and stated some inappropriate phrases.
Chair Willeke asked her to leave. She left.
Ms Longgood stated that she was in favor of the Special Exception so that the town folks could have a say. She felt that each project should have public input.
Mr. Voelker questioned conflict of interest. If anyone had anything to gain, they should recues themselves.
Amendments V, VII, and IX should be a Special Exception.
Ms. Block stated that she had been very impressed with the opening statements. She said that the Chair should not have shut Mr. Block down so quickly. She said that he was on the defensive because he was putting forth zoning that had no restrictions. Mr. Webber had an email going around. She stated that all should have to play by the same rules. She read a prepared statement [attached] .She wanted the amendment tabled. She stated that she wanted protection for the Rural Conservation District.
Chair Willeke said that it is his role to run an orderly meeting. He said that the ground rules had been set at the beginning. If asked to stop, the speaker should stop. Good points had been made, but what the Board was proposing would help the town if something like this [renewable energy] were to come into town.
Ms. Block repeated that all should play by the same rules.
Ms. Knowles wanted to thank the people who work for the town - she admitted that she was too selfish herself. She was concerned about some of the things on the list and it would be helpful to know the Board's day jobs.
The Board members stated their jobs. Mr. Robblee also stated that he was a property owner had two children.
Mr. Duffy wanted to know if the Board was still discussing #5.
Mr. Wallace said that he thought the wind turbines were beautiful, but he was concerned by the talk of the wide roads that would go through the Rural Conservation District. He state that a Special Exception was necessary.
Mr. Ward (Stoddard ZBA) asked if he could speak. He said that the Town of Stoddard had spent a lot of money to have a large area set aside around the Robb Reservoir. It supplied a large corridor for animals. He stated that he had a terrible feeling that there would be this large area and the wind turbines would be located. He submitted a written statement for the record (with these minutes)
Ms. Penny stated that the Special Exception should be in the wording, not permitted use.
Mr. Soininen asked permission to address the Board.
Chair Willeke said no - because of the pending law suits.
Mr. Hankard asked if an informal vote could be taken.
The Board said no.
Mr. Webber said that he had not sent out an email, the information had been on facebook, He also stated that he was able to express his opinion as a Selectman and as a resident.
Janet McEwen asked for clarification.
Ron Haggett (as a member of ZBA) explained that every Zoning Ordinance can be subject to appeal. He further explained that the vehicle to appeal was the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). The ZBA can grant or deny the application. If the use is a permitted use [allowed by the Zoning Ordinance], the applicant would request a Site Plan Review [major or minor - depending on the use - information about this on the antrimnh.org]. A Special Exception would go before the ZBA.
Ms. McEwan asked if it would go to the ZBA if it were not in the code.
Vice-Chair Burnside explained that once approved by the ZBA, it would then go to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review.
Ms. McEwan wanted to know if would be put in the hands of the voters.
Mr. Haggett said the vote would occur on Election Day not Town Meeting.
Mr. Robblee said that as the definition is written now, the question would then allow the residents to vote.
Mr. Lazar said that the Planning Board is bound by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Haggett said that just because it is permitted dose not mean that it will happen.
Mr. Beblowski stated that the reason case is coming about is because it is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. He reiterated the process. He said that he could tell how the 1000' band for the Highway Business Zone had come about because he was part of the committee. He said that he felt that there was value for a project to go before the ZBA as a Special Exception for the extra level of review and criteria. He said that the proposed ordinance could change the rural character of the town. He continued that the Rural Conservation District is a very large unfragmented portion of town with few roads and it has become a special place. It has its own legacy as part of the Quabbin to Cardigan Project which protects and values wide open spaces. He said that the Ordinance Change does not protect the RCD, not the future legacy of the town. The
permitted use of large renewable energy facilities should be tabled. The Planning Board should come up with an ordinance similar to the Small Wind Energy Ordinance - so that if a proposal occurs, the regulations are in place. He finished by stating that it should be made a Special Exception.
Mr. Ledgerwood said that he had attended the last Planning Board meeting and that they realized they would be walking into a mine field. He said that the Planning Board thought that it should go the voters for the decision to be made.
Mr. Klinger proposed that #5 should be totally tabled. He said that he saw it as tug of war and questioned the wording of the ballot question.
Mr. Bernstein said that it was not clear enough and in due diligence it should be tabled. The Board's professional should look at wording from other towns. He stated that conflict of interest can be real and perceived.
Ms. Knowles said that she perceived a problem in how the information is obtained. How would she find out about the rules and how would the voters know the various sides. She said that a lot of people do not know what they are voting for and how could this be dealt wit.
Chair Willeke said that it is up to the voter must do their own research.
Vice-Chair Burnside said that the Master Plan is on the website. He stated that the state is encouraging Planning Boards not to restrict renewable energy projects.
Ms. Knowles wanted to know if a study had been done.
Mr. Moore said that the ordinance change would be breaking new ground. There was also the possibility that the State's Site Evaluation Committee would review the application rather than the Planning Board.
Ms. Knowles said that since it would be "new ground" , the Planning Board should go in the direction of more caution.
Vice-Chair Burnside said that it is up to the voter to inform themselves.
Ms. Pinello wanted to know that if the Ordinance were to be on the ballot would it say "supported by the Planning Board"? She cautioned the Planning Board to think carefully about what it means. She felt that members of the community would see that Planning Board had recommended the Ordinance and would vote by their recommendation. She further cautioned that the Planning Board look closely at what they are doing and that there are other ways.
Chair Willeke said that a Public Hearing is for that purpose.
Ms. Pinello said there are a whole list of sound solutions and many ways to get community support.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that he felt it should be tabled and questioned how a special piece of land would be the benefit of changing the ordinance. He asked what is the motivation for the change.
Mr. Robblee said that tabling the ordinance would not make the issue go away. It will still come before the town in some way. He said that by putting it to a vote, it gives the voter a chanced to say no and then it would not be an allowed use.
Mr. Haggett said that everyone should understand that if a town has a Zoning Ordinance, it must have a Zoning Board of Adjustment. He continued that no matter how adamantly a resident is opposed to a proposal, the landowner could still go before the ZBA for the use.
Mr. Kendall said that he wanted to see this go to a vote because presently there are no guidelines. He felt that it should be a Special Exception for all districts. He said that hi thought both boards should review the proposal
Mr. Robblee said that the Planning Board was trying to keep a certain amount of bureaucracy out of it.
Ms. Longgood said that everything should be looked at and that the ballot question should not say "supported by the Planning Board".
Mr. Brendan Block said that it scared him to see it as a permitted use. It would be like giving a green light. As a future generation (he stated that he was hoping his parents would leave their land to him), he cautioned the Planning Board. He had grown up in the RCD and had enjoyed walking in the woods.
Mr. William Johnson said that the voters should be able to decide.
Mr. Koziell said that biomass had been a part of the definition in one of the early discussions.
Chair Willeke said that the Planning board had discussed just "wind" and thendecided to be more inclusive in the definition.
Chair Willeke that the Site Plan Review guides the restrictions.
Ms. Nelkens asked if a proposal could be stopped if the requirements are not met.
Mr. Beblowski said that he was one of two people who had shown up for the Public Hearing for the Small Wind Ordinance and that he felt that the Planning Board should produce an ordinance of a similar nature.
Ms. Knowles was concerned about the educating the public.
Ms. Pinello wanted to know what would happen at the second Public Hearing.
Chair Willeke said that revisions would be considered.
Ms. Pinello said that she had been involved in many construction projects and she was concerned about the projects that might be abandoned and that the town would be left with the issue of removing whatever remained.
Mr. Robblee said that a Major Site Plan Review would deal with that type of issue.
Mr. Wallace wanted to know why the voters had to vote on anything. If the RCD had not industrial use, why was a vote needed.
Chair Willeke said that the Planning Board wanted the feed back of the town, but also that private landowners also have property rights.
Ms. Block said that although tabling the issue will not make it go away, it could be tabled for a year and try to educate the town. A recommendation from the Planning Board is usually becomes a passed vote. She said that she feels like the proposed ordinance change is being pushed through. She stated that she felt like it was being pushed through. She has not been able to educate the people.
Mr. Robblee said that the Public Hearing was her chance to do that. As concerned citizens, they should be putting on the forum. He further stated that he felt that it should go to the townspeople for a vote. If the town votes no, so be it.
Mr. Kendall explained what had occurred in the ZBA with the Met Tower, and that now it is in the hands of the court.
Ms. Block cautioned the Planning Board to think about what they are saying. She stated that the current proposal had no restrictions, no safeguards, and that the Board is not being genuine.
Mr. Klinger said that the definitions needed to broken down for each renewable energy facility
Mr. Bernstein questioned a point of order. He expressed due diligence and proof, and felt that Site Plan criteria and "as builts"should be developed for each type of facility.
Chair Willeke said that an as built description could not be done for each renewable energy facility.
Mr. Jones of Stoddard wanted to know if regional impact towns would be notified of Antrim' s proposed ordinance changes.
Vic-Chair Burnside said that if a proposal had regional impact the regional impact towns would be notified.
Mr. Moore said that the January 20, 2011 meeting would be another Public Hearing for the proposed changes.
Chair Willeke said that the Public Hearing will continue.
Mr. Moore read a letter from Elsa Voelcker (who was in opposition to the proposed changes - letter attached).
Mr. Moore also read a letter from Audubon (letter attached) who stated that the proposed changes should be a Special Exception not a permitted use.
At 10:15 pm, Chair Willeke said that the meeting would be continued to January 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm.
The following articles were on the handout but not discussed - to be continued January 20, 2011)
6. Amend Articles V, VII & IX
Add Excavation to - Principle Permitted uses
ARTICLE V - Highway Business District, Section B, 1 - Principal Permitted Uses
ARTICLE VII - Rural District, Section B, 1 - Principal Permitted Uses
Add Excavation to - Special Exception uses (See Article XIII)
ARTICLE IX - Rural Conservation District, Section B, 3 - Special Exception uses
(Note - Notice of Public Hearing posted in Villager Friday December 24, 2010 cited Excavation Site, not Excavation. This change of terms for this proposed amendment will be taken-up at both the January 6 and 20 public hearing)
7. Amend Article XIV-B - "Personal Wireless Service Facility" (PWSF)
Section 4. DISTRICT REGULATIONS:
Location - PWSFs proposed to be located in or on existing structures shall be permitted in all Zoning Districts except the Rural Conservation District .
Ground-mounted PWSFs shall be an allowed use in the Highway Business District, and by a Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the Rural, Rural Conservation, and Lakefront District. Ground-mounted PWSFs will not be permitted in the Residential or Village Residential Districts.
In any district where Ground-mounted PWSFs are allowed by Special Exception, no portion of the facility may be built within 300 feet of any disapproving abutters residential structure.
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.
8. Amend Article XIV - "Special Exceptions"
ARTICLE XIV Section O. - Home Occupations
7. Not show any exterior evidence of a home occupation except for signs as permitted in the ordinance. (referring to Article XVII Sign Ordinance)
It should read -
7. Not show any exterior evidence of a home occupation except for signs as permitted in Article XVII, Section D - Signs Permitted in All Districts Without Permit
9. Amend Article XIII - "Sign Ordinance"
Section E.
3. All signs shall conform with all provisions of Section B of this Article (Signs Prohibited in All Districts.
It should read -
3. All signs shall conform with all provisions of Section C of this Article (Signs Prohibited in All Districts
Also, in reference to # 1. Amendments to Article III "Definitions" - Public utility
The Planning Board, in it's tabling of a proposal to define Public utility, further proposes to delete from the Zoning Ordinance, Articles IV, V, VI, VII and IX, Public utility as a Permitted use. This amendment will not serve to eliminate the right of Public utilities to exist and/or be built-out in all zoning districts, but is intended to eliminate the confusion and mixed interpretation of this undefined term. Further discussion of this newly introduced proposal will be included in the public hearing scheduled for January 6 and January 20, 2011
Proposed changes to the Building Permit Application Fee Schedule
Pursuant to IRC/IBC R108.2, the following changes to the Building Permit Application Fee Schedule are being be proposed for adoption by the Planning Board / Board of Selectmen (not subject to vote in March 2011)
1. Change fee assessed for "Renewal Permit" from $25.00 to "50% of original permit cost with a minimum of $50.00." Planning Board felt that this proposed change would need further discussion.
2. Add fee assessed for a "Zoning Permit," to be $25.00. (Zoning Permit required for all new free-standing structures less than 200 sq. ft.)
12/28/2010
| 
