ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
January 20, 2011 Meeting
Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Ordinances
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: - (listed are the signed in people or Diane Recognized)
Shelly Nelkens Jack Kenworthy Jon Soinien Ray Ledgerwood
Peter Lamb Christina Burnside Sam Apkarian Rick Seavey
Lyman Gilmore Ron Haggett James Hankard Peter Beblowski
Charles Levesque Ron Cheetham David Duffy Sue Bernstein
Martha Pinello Nancy Knowles Rod Zwirner Janis Longgood
Robert Cleland Loranne Block Richard Block Molly Moore-Lazar
Kevin Devine Barbara Welles Mr. Burnham Sarah Gorman
Elsa Volker Michael Pon Michael Frosch Mrs. Frosch
David Cahoon Mrs. Cahoon Carter Proctor Arthur Merrill
Tom Davis Beth Merrill Barbara Welles Stuart Gross
Jane Fluhr Lois Ann Johnson Ryan Storro Cliff Burdette
Keith Linger Gary Webber Jim Fletcher
6:00 PM - Review Period:
Chair Willeke opened the meeting at 6:25pm. He announced that the PB would do business and then begin the Public Hearing.
· Appoint alternates to sit for absent members – no need
· Review the Minutes of January 6, 2010 Meeting –Chair moved Koziell seconded to review next time
· Koziell moved to postpone Lauber to 2/3/2011 as a continuance, Chair seconded; ayes by all.
· Mr. Moore – building permit fee schedule request that it be continued to 2/3/11, Chair moved, Burnside seconded, all ayes.
Chair Willeke introduced himself and had the members and staff introduce themselves. He asked all public attendees to sign in and then explained the procedure for the meeting. The public hearing would begin with proposed amendment #6. Those who chose to comment were asked to come to the middle of the room, to the microphone and announce their name and address. Attendees’ first comment would be limited to 3 minutes; the second comment on the same subject would be 2 minutes.
Public Hearing - Pursuant to RSA 675:3 and 675:7, the Antrim Planning Board will present proposed Amendments/Changes for the Antrim Zoning Ordinance.
Request that the board move continue portion of the public hearing until Thursday, February 3, 2011.
Mr. Levesque asked a procedural question.
Chair Willeke explained that the Board would listen to attendee comments until all had their opinions expressed, the public hearing would be closed to further comment, deliberation among the Board members; the goal – establish the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) amendment language for the March 8, 2011 ballot questions. A second pubic hearing has been noticed for February 1, 2011 to present and hear input on any substantive changes made this evening.
Chair Willeke asked Mr. Moore to read the public notice (which had been noticed in The Villager on 12/24/2011).
Chair Willeke stated that he wanted an orderly meeting with no unruliness. The Chair and Ex-Officio has asked for police presence during the entire meeting. Chair Willeke asked for professional and courteous behavior.
Mr. Hankard asked who would be able to speak.
Chair Willeke said that he anticipated that members of Eolian would speak. He said that he wanted to hear comments. He did not plan on denying anyone from speaking.
Mr. Hankard wanted to know if the attendees would be able to ask questions of Eolian.
Chair Willeke said that all questions would go through the Chair – there would be no back and forth between audience members.
Ms. Knowles wanted to know if she would be able to ask questions of Eolian.
Chair Willeke said no but he was quite sure that Eolian would be willing to answer questions in another forum.
Ms. Lazar-Moore asked if the Chair planned to open comments to Amendments # 1 – 5.
Chair Willeke began to explain when a person from the back asked – why can Eolian speak? Why are they here?
Chair Willeke said that they were not slated to speak, but he anticipated asking them questions.
Mr. Moore said that there were five letters that had come in since the last meeting that should be read.
Chair Willeke read the following proposed amendment:
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)
Chair Willeke asked for comments.
Mr. Hankard asked, “Does this mean that anyone could open up a gravel pit?”
Chair Willeke said that any proposal for an excavation site would go through a Site Plan Review.
Mr. Burnside concurred with the Chair that there are town regulations as well as State Regulations (RSA -155: e)
Mr. Hankard said that he felt the value of the property would go down.
Mr. Burnside said that the voters would make the decision.
Mr. Hankard was not satisfied with the Board’s responses.
Mr. Burnside said that in the Master Plan there are excavation regulations but the districts are not addressed.
Mr. Hankard said that if the Planning Board approved the changes to the amendment, property values would go down. He also said that it would open a Pandora’s Box.
Mr. Burnside said that the Site Plan Review process was extensive.
Mr. Hankard said that he would vote against excavation sites because of the noise and property values.
Chair Willeke asked for further comments.
Ms. Moore-Lazar wanted to know how the items would be presented on the ballot, and would each question be presented separately – so that the voice of the people would be shown through the vote
Chair Willeke thanked her for her thoughts.
Ms. Nelkens wanted a clarification – would Board members recues themselves during deliberation.
Ms. Longgood said that she felt the proposed ZO amendment changes were too quick and it appeared to her that the changes had been put on the fast track.
Mr. Robblee said that the discussion had been ongoing for the past five years.
Mr. Burnside said that it is the responsibility of the voter to educate themselves.
Ms. Volker reiterated Ms. Longgood’s comments. She felt that the changes were fast tracking in the RCD and that industry could come into the district and may look junky; and as far as excavation – who needs gravel and sand.
Mr. Beblowski read from prepared comments:
He asked how many surrounding towns had excavation sites as a permitted use.
Has the Planning Board engaged SWRP in assistance with industrial development in the town?
He said that excavation as a permitted use is an abomination
He felt that the land was significantly scarred by a pit.
That there was a negative impact to ground water because the sand that filters the water has been removed.
He said that if you lived near or across from a gravel pit, it can go on for 25 – 30 years
He then read the definition of the RCD and the permitted uses allowed in that district
He said that noise, dust and traffic should be prohibited
Chair Willeke told Mr. Beblowski that his time was up.
Mr. Beblowski continued. He said that the ZO change was for the short term gain to meet the needs of a single business. He felt it should be made a Special Exception.
Ms. Knowles had looked for the minutes for such an important meeting.
Chair Willeke explained that approved minutes are posted, but that the draft is available at the Town Hall – five business days after the meeting.
Ms. Knowles asked if anyone on the Board had lived next to a gravel pit.
Mr. Koziell said that he lived in a gravel pit. He explained the procedure for a gravel pit.
Mr. Moore explained the Annual Review for all active excavation sites.
Ms. Knowles said that she had never been invited, as an abutter to the pit abutting her. She felt that the life of the pit had doubled. She said that it used to be a gorgeous country road before the roar of the trucks and the horrible sandpit.
Mr. Klinger wanted to know why businesses are being sited in the RCD.
Chair Willeke said that the term “conservation” was a misnomer. The land in the RCD is not all in a conservation easement. Much of the land is private land and that business could be allowed.
Mr. Klinger said that conservation land is conservation land and that it is rural and business should be kept out of conservation land.
Chair Willeke said that much of it is private land.
Mr. Klinger said that he is against it –“massive amounts of equipment, scarring the environment, it could turn it into a big hole in the ground”.
Mr. Moore read a letter from Renee Rabideau which was opposed to excavation sites as a permitted use. (part of the permanent minutes).
Ms. Pinello had two requests: 1) the ballot questions should be kept simple and 2) that the ballot questions should not have the support of the PB. She then read from a prepared statement (which she did not give to the secretary).
Ms. Block said that she was opposed to Excavation in the RCD. On large tracts of land it could be devastating. She also said that it would be crazy to have it as a permitted use in the RCD.
Ms. Gorman said “that it is not about Webber and Burnside – they tank the whole process” – and so she had drawn up waivers that said - “…no PB Member would profit from any financial relationship with Eolian or Antrim Wind Energy, nor profit from any construction of any industrial wind complex…” She then placed a waiver in front of each member and said that it was a “collusive relationship”.
Mr. Hankard and Mr. Beblowski spoke.
Ms. Nelkens was curious about the Master Plan and the legality of projects that were approved by the PB. She said (in reference to gravel pits) – “they are sleezy, horrible, a conflict of interest, roads will need repairing, it will be impossible for her to work outside, and the town was going to look like a third rate town”.
Mr. Koziell said that as a point of clarification, listing a gravel pit as a permitted use does not give a “green light” to the proposed project. He said that the process was a “huge approval process” and that abutters were invited to participate in that process.
Mr. Webber said that the Master Plan recognizes rural character but also addressed the need for a tax base. Renewable energy could be that tax base. He said that it would be up to the voters in March to decide.
Mr. Beblowski requested that the gravel pit not be allowed as a permitted use. He said that the existing pits are destructive and disruptive. An excavation site should be in the Special Exception category – giving another level of scrutiny. Excavation sites should not be allowed in the RCD, as a Special Exception in the Rural District.
Ms. Knowles said “I have a dream” (there were a few chuckles) – she continued to say that she was all for wind power but felt that the source should be small wind power.
Chair Willeke reminded the attendees that the topic was Excavation, not wind.
Ms. Knowles said that she “would love to find a solution, and was hopeful that (the Board?) could come up with a dream”. She wanted to ask what was the difference between coal top mining and a gravel pit.
Mr. Apkarian said that he had moved to Antrim because of its many qualities – deer, moose – he continued that he wanted it to remain rural and that he wanted to die here (in Antrim). He admitted that he had been lax in attending meetings but he wanted to protect what he loved for himself and his family.
Mr. Koziell said that is why the question is being put to the voters.
Mr. Robblee reiterated that the Site Plan Review process is extensive.
Chair Willeke said that the current PB would like to open up areas in Antrim for more business. The question to the voters – do they want that or not. Is Antrim too restrictive? The PB is not talking “mega businesses” – but rather “small town guys that could open up”.
Mr. Robblee said that the PB is “not making it easy, but rather easier”.
Ms. Knowles asked if this would come up if wind were not involved.
Mr. Robblee reminded the attendees that Excavation had nothing to do with wind.
Mr. Burnside explained that when Mr. Vasques was the Town Planner, NH Department of Environmental Services reviewed all alteration of terrain permits. The drainage issues, as well as the amount of material necessary to filter waters for underground water were scrutinized. Each pit is reviewed on an annual basis at which time a representative from the state [Department of Revenue Administration _ Mary Pinkham Langer] can be asked to attend. An Excavation site is a very regulated (RSA: 155:e) and applying for a site is not an automatic green light.
Ms. Knowles continued to question the pit that her property abutted.
Mr. Burnside attempted to explain reclamation.
Chair Willeke further explained regulations for Excavation Sites. He asked for further comments.
Mr. Webber said that when a resident runs for the PB [an elected position], the candidate can state his agenda. The Zoning Board of Adjustment [an appointed position] is a quasijudicial Board – members can not take a stand. On the present Planning Board, the Board is pro business.
Ms. Bartlett said that she believed in sustainable development and the gravel pits are strip mining. She continued that excavation changed the definition of rural and that excavation should be prohibited in the RCD and as a Special Exception in the Rural District.
Mr. Cahoon asked how much land was in RCD. (He was referred to the Zoning map at the front of the hall). He then said that he felt that it would be foolish to prohibit excavation in such a large area of town.
Mr. Linger said that he understood that the PB was in a “tough spot”. He said that the RCD was 50% of the land and why would the PB consider putting anything in the RCD. He said the PB “should do it right and designate commercial and that does not include the RCD. Instead of pushing it through, excavation sites should be on major thoroughfare that can handle the gravel. Keep conservation land what it is”.
Chair Willeke thanked him for his comments.
Mr. Koziell said that the land that had been designated Highway Business was not all developable when Shoreland Protection was factored. He continued that the decision would be up to the voters.
Mr. Llinger said that he did not want to see “approved by the Planning Board”.
Mr. Gross said obstructing exemptions in the rural zone could be a taking. He referred to his pit on Pleasant Street, much of which had been used to build Pleasant Street, did not ruin the land. It had been completed and restored.
Mr. Frosch said that guidance is needed in property rights. He said that it is up to the person who owns the land to be able to do what they want. He asked if the attendees realized that every road in town came from a gravel pit. He repeated that an owner should be able to use his land.
Ms. Gorman concurred with the Renee Rabideau letter. She then asked the PB members if they were in collusion with Eolian.
Chair Willeke said that her comment had nothing to do with Excavation.
Ms. Gorman said that there were several subdivisions in town and there had been no sales.
Chair Willeke asked Ms. Gorman to stop.
Chair Willeke asked for further comments from the attendees. There were none. He read the following:
7. Amend Article XIV-B - “Personal Wireless Service Facility” (PWSF)
Section 4. ~DISTRICT balancing act – which part of plan to follow
REGULATIONS:
Location - PWSFs proposed to be located in or on existing structures shall be permitted in all Zoning Districts except the Rural lo 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.
Ms. Nelkens asked for a need to educated about ground mounted structures.
Mr. Burnside said that a cell tower could be located in or on an existing structure. A tower would not be placed on top of the structure, it could be no higher than the existing structure.
Ms. Nelkens said that a cell tower could be placed on the boundary of an abutting property because the ZO said that it could not be placed in a certain proximity to a structure and she wanted that changed so that it could not be placed on an abutter’s property.
Chair Willeke said that there are always setbacks that regulate the placement of a structure.
Mr. Davis said that he wished to speak , though not a voter, he was a significant tax payer. He admitted that he agreed with Ms. Nelkens and that a cell tower on a structure with multiple carriers would not be pleasing. He said that he appreciated what the PB has done. He felt that there could be a benefit to placement on the water tower or other high structure. He also said that there could be a benefit in promoting cell towers in the Highway Business District – possible by giving a greater height allowance.
Mr. Hankard asked what was the inherent benefit of allowing a cell tower in the town.
Chair Willeke said two examples are public safety and better coverage.
Mr. Hankard asked if any carrier had approached the town.
Mr. Webber said that AT&T had an application in the town and that it had been a learning experience. He explained that a company has the right to get coverage. He agreed that it would be move advantageous to encourage co-location.
Mr. Robblee said that the current ZO already addresses the co-location issue.
Mr. Hankard said that he was concerned about abutters and the townspeople and asked if the townspeople would all receive free cell phones.
Mr. Block said that there were not enough controls. He had taken a picture of the new cell tower in Sullivan that he felt was “massive and scary”. He worried about “no controls” and if that kind of thing could happen in Antrim. He said that the Sullivan tower made him “nervous”. He said it was just for commercial tax base. He said that properties near such a structure would be less desirable and he wondered if his taxes would go down. He mentioned property rights and that he would like to live on his property as it is. He felt that the purpose of the RCD was to preserve and protect. He said that wind would redefine the Zoning Ordinance. It would still be the RCD but it “will have all kinds of industrial stuff in it”.
Ms. Block agrees with Mr. Block – “just drive out to Manchester to see no controls”. She said that although the PB is saying put it to a vote and that permitted use does not automatically give a green light, she has seen thing after thing approved. She then asked what would the control be if it were a permitted use. She said that there are other ways to have a tax base. Then, she said – “we are not supposed to talk about wind farms – but what about Mr. Webber – the Selectmen have already decided that if an application is proposed, it would go directly to the SEC (Site Evaluation Committee – state level)”.
Mr. Webber asked if her comments concerned cell towers.
Ms. Block said she wanted an answer
Mr. Webber said he would be happy to talk with her in a different forum.
Ms. Block said it was a farce of the whole system.
Mr. Webber invited her to a Selectmen’s meeting.
Ms. Block stated that population density should be though about. She said that she felt a ballot question is not the way to get a good feel.
Chair Willeke said that she had been heard.
Ms. Nelkens suggested a questionnaire, but she did not like the way the last one was done and began to explain why.
Mr. Cleland stated that he was totally against any type of tower in the RCD. He felt that to disturb the RCD was a tragedy that would lower property values – for a few to profit. He did not want to see the area ruined and he was totally against excavation.
Ms. Pinello suggested a different route for the PB. She stated that she had worked in the development of cell tower sites and explained the meaning of co-location to the Board and said that she encouraged co-location
Mr. Duffy said that he requested height regulations.
Chair Willeke stated that the meeting would continue with the following amendment (which he read):
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
Mr. Moore explained that this was “housekeeping” and simply clarified the ZO.
Ms. Nelkens aked for an explanation.
Mr. Moore explained that it was in reference to signs and only made the verbiage clearer.
Chair Willeke continued with the next proposed amendment.
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
This too was “housekeeping” – for clarity.
8:31pm
Mr. Moore said that there were five letters to be read. Mr. Moore and the secretary will read the letters. The letters will become part of the permanent record stored in the Town Hall.
Mr. Duffy asked if #5 would be opened up after the letters are read.
Chair Willeke said that he would allow the letters to be read.
Mr. Moore read a letter to the PB from Jack Kenworthy (Eolian)
8:31 – 8:41
Ms. Gorman objected. She asked if the waivers were signed. She left the room.
Ms. Nelkens objects.
Chair Willeke explained that on the January 6, 2011 meeting, he had allowed everyone to speak. When it would have been an opportunity for Eolian to speak, and audience member had said that would not be allowed unless the people at the meeting allowed it. Not wanting “to add fuel to the fire”, he did not allow them to speak. This was his way of making up for that.
8:42 – 8:45 Mr. Moore finished the letter.
8:45 – 8:48
Next Alexander Snow letter read by the secretary. His letter was for renewable energy but not wind farms in the RCD.
8:49 – 8:55
Charles Bean letter read by Mr. Moore – Supportive of the Wind Farm
8:55 – 9:00
Michael Ott letter read by Secretary – Supportive of the Wind Farm and for his property rights
9:00 – 9:01
Ben Pratt letter by Mr. Moore – Supportive of the Wind Farm and for renewable energy for future generations
9:02 – 9:05
Jack Kenworthy reiterated points that had been made in his January 7 letter.
Mr. Hankard said that he should not have to sit through the Eolian letter and then not be able to rebut.
Chair Willeke said that everyone had had their chance to speak.
Mr. Hankard and Ms. Pinello had objections.
Chair Willeke closed the Public Hearing.
Deliberation:
Chair Willeke stated that there had been many comments from the Public Attendees and much to digest. He asked the secretary if she would project some of the aerial photos of the Lempster Mt Wind Farm and while that was being set up – a five-minute break for all.
After the break, Chair Willeke asked Mr. Kenworthy questions concerning the proposed wind farm. He stated that the Board is attempting to be pro-active and wanted to show that the projected picture is similar to what it would look like in Antrim. He wanted to show that the footprint is not huge.
Some audience members wanted to speak.
The question was – would any other district other than the RCD work for a wind farm.
Mr. Kenworthy said that only one area in Antrim would work for the wind farm.
Chair Willeke asked if the wind farm could be situated in the Highway Business District.
Mr. Kenworthy said that would not work.
Chair concluded that the best place is in the Rural Conservation District and it does not make a lot of sense in other districts.
#1. Definition of Renewable Energy Facility
Some of the discussion points:
Take out all but solar and wind (Koziell)
Geothermal is not practical and no solar works in this latitude (Webber)
RCD – add Special Exception – a global definition of renewable energy (Lazar)
Should be addressed that it is greater than 100kw wind-powered generation facility (Burnside)
Should try to keep it simple. The issue is on the table now. A simpler definition for just “wind energy facility” would be more realistic for this purpose, and would mitigate further possible confusion.
Mr. Koziell moved to accept the definition of Wind Energy Facility as presented, with the removal of all other references to other renewable energy sources, and removal of the last line referring to what would not be permitted. Mr. Webber seconded. Role call vote all ayes to accept the definition as presented.
#2. Mr. Koziell moved; Mr. Dubois seconded. Role call vote all ayes to accept the amendment as presented
#3. Tabled by the board at their 12/23/10 meeting – needs further study.
#4. Change incorrect reference in Article V, Section 1, nn, for Manufactured Housing Units (Per Article XIV, Section U), was Section W.
#5. The following points were discussed:
First – strike “all renewable” (Burnside) and add Wind Energy Facility to coincide with definition for same.
There is only one viable site- any other district does not make sense (Webber)
A discussion of the Zoning Districts
A discussion of the position of power lines
RCD – should if be a permissible use
Distribution of energy would be an accessory use – to allow or not allow
Question from the PB to Eolian – how to move energy
Mr. Kenworthy said that the point of connection would be through a series of controls. The Right-of-Way goes in and out of the HB and RCD.
PB member asked how are they tied in.
Mr. Moore suggested that a condition of approval in any Major Site Plan Review could require that utility lines from the facility be placed underground.
Mr. Kenworthy said that the interconnection is to a series of collected controls.
#5 Discussion points (continued):
Should be RCD and HB – no point in including other ZO districts
Should be a principle permitted use
As a Special Exception – the ZBA would have a clear case in front of them
Needs to be straight up and down vote by the town
If a Special Exception is needed for a B & B, why not for a wind farm
Specific should be noted
Should add height structures – there are already some specifics in the ZO
Setbacks could be made a condition
Residents are worried about permitted use – should language be added
The language exists in the Site Plan Review
If it passes in the March vote, the language and regulation could be added to Site Plan Regulations by the Planning Board
Numerous concerning the height regulations – language necessary on height and setbacks
Should the wording be – Principle permitted use or Special Exception
RCD and HB as permitted use for wind energy facility
Mr. Koziell moved that wind Energy facility be added to Article V (Highway Business) and Article IX (Rural Conservation) as a permitted use, Mr. Webber seconded. Role-call vote all ayes
Mr. Moore suggested that if the board genuinely sought to make their proposed changes to the zoning ordinance as a referendum for the legislative body to decide, that they consider presenting the questions on the warrant ballot without prejudice of a recommendation from the Planning Board on the more controversial Article changes. No recommendation and no disapproval.
Mr. Burnside moved to accept Mr. Moore’s suggestion as presented, but for it to apply to all questions on the ballot. Mr. Dubois seconded. Role-call vote was all ayes, except nay by Mr. Webber.
Mr. Beblowski said that as a point of order that the Board did not speak to some districts.
#6. Excavation
Mr. Robblee explains that gravel is a resource that the town of Antrim has.
Mr. Lazar said that he is conflicted by the gravel pit guidelines. He said that an existing pit is one thing but a new pit could be a problem. He would not like a gravel pit next to his house.
Mr. Koziell said that there is still a process to go through.
Mr. Robblee said – to answer the question of – why in the Rural District – the answer – that is where the gravel is
Mr. Lazar said that it is an uphill battle for the homeowner.
Mr. Moore stated that a new excavation site could be bonded, which would guarantee that the site is reclaimed, and that any road damage near the site repaired.
Board members felt that Excavation Site should be allowed in the HB and Rural Districts, that Antrim’s Subdivision & Site Plan Regulations as well as Antrim’s Earth Excavation & Reclamation Regulations and NH RSA 155-E would govern any development of new sites.
Mr. Beblowski thought that Mr. Burnside should recues himself from the vote.
Mr. Burnside said that he was not voting on the regulation – the town’s people would be voting.
HB and Rural – as a principle permitted use was discussed further, and the board concurred that the Rural Conservation District could be removed from inclusion in the proposed amendment.
Mr. Koziell moved to add Excavation as a permitted use in the Highway Business District and the Rural District, but eliminate the Rural Conservation District as a consideration. Mr. Webber seconded. Role call vote all ayes, except nay by Mr. Lazar.
#7 PWSF
There was a long discussion on how a cell tower should be mounted on a structure.
Ms. Nelkens suggested that the police officer could be relieved as she was leaving.
Mr. Koziell moved that the proposed amendment’s wording be accepted as written for the ballot. Mr. Webber seconded. All ayes, but Chair Willeke.
# 8
Mr. Koziell moved that the proposed amendment’s wording be accepted as written for the ballot. Mr. Webber seconded. All ayes.
#9
Chair Koziell moved that the proposed amendment’s wording be accepted as written for the ballot. Mr. Burnside seconded. Role call vote all ayes.
Business Meeting:
· Cases continued from Public Meeting on December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011:
· Request that board again “continue” this case to Thursday, February 3, 2011, as agreed to by the Lauber’s representative Gayle Rochford
· Signing of final plans for Rymes Lot Line Adjustment approved by board on December 16, 2010 – on hold until Rymes’ power-of-attorney son signs mylars.
· Second Public Hearing for the presentation of the final amendments on Tuesday, February 1, 2011 at 7 PM. Final language determined by this deliberation and vote of the board would be available for review at the town hall starting Saturday, January 22, 2011 and in the Town Hall office during regular business hours.
Mr. Kenworthy posed a question about consideration of the change in language in Article XIV, H, 2 (Special industrial structures) as brought up by Eolian’s representative at the boards work session meeting of 12/23/10. Mr. Moore stated that this suggestion had not been noticed for public hearing, nor discussed during either session of the first public hearing public on January 6 or 20. Because the board did not address this suggested change in public hearing, no substantive changes could be made in the second, and last public hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Chauncey, Board Secretary
| 
