ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
February 1, 2011 Meeting
Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Ordinances
Members & Staff Present:
Diane Chauncey (Staff) David Dubois(Member) Joe Koziell (Member)
Jesse Lazar (Member) Peter Moore (Planner) StephenSchacht(Alternate)
Gordon Webber (Ex-Officio) CR Willeke (Chair)
Member & Staff Absent:
Scott Burnside (Vice-Chair) Andrew Robblee
Public Attendees: - (listed are the signed in people or Diane Recognized)
Ben Pratt John Soinien Martha Pinello Peter Beblowski
Shelly Nelkens Richard Block Keith Linger Robert Cleland
Annie Law Sarah Gorman Molly Moore-Lazar Loranne Carey-Block
7:12 – Chair Willeke opened the meeting by introducing himself and having Board and Staff introduce themselves. Mr. Schacht was appointed to sit for the absent Mr. Burnside. He asked Mr. Moore to read the Public Notice (which had been advertised in The Villager, placed on the Bulletin Board of Town Hall, the antrimnh.org website and the bulletin board of the Post Office).
Chair Willeke explained the procedure. He said that he would read the proposed amendments, and then ask for comment.
Ballot questions:
1. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1 as proposed by the Planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows?
Amend Article III - “Definitions” to ADD under Section B
Wind Energy Facility: A power generation facility greater than 100 kilowatts in rated nameplate capacity and powered by wind 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 collections of data and/or testing to determine the viability of such energy facilities, as well as any accessory and appurtenant uses.
He asked for comments or questions.
Richard Block asked if any changes could be made; or could any of the questions be tabled. And he wanted to know how does wind energy deliver heat.
Mr. Moore stated that the board could withdraw or table proposed amendments, but not make any substantive changes to this point.
Mr. Webber asked for a language change, to remove heat, or both from the amendment
Chair Willeke asked for further comments. There were none.
2. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment 2 as proposed by the Planning board for the town zoning
ordinance as follows?
Amend Article III – “Definitions” for TO CORRECT REFERENCE under Section B
Cluster Housing Development: An area of land, controlled by landowner or landowners organization developed as a single entity for a number of dwelling units in accordance with Supplemental Regulations, Article XIV-C (Amended March 11, 2003)
Chair Willeke asked for comments. There were none.
3. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment 3 as proposed by the PlanningBboard for the town zoning ordinance as follows?
Amend Article V – “Highway Business District” for TO CORRECT REFERENCE under Section B, 1
Manufactured Housing Units (per Article XIV, Section U)
Chair Willeke asked for comments. There were none.
4. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment 4 as proposed by the Planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows?
Amend Article V – “Highway Business District” and Article IX “Rural Conservation District” to ADD
Wind Energy Facility to Section B, 1 as Principal Permitted Uses
Mr. Block asked the Planning Board (PB) to seriously consider tabling this amendment change, because there were no controls and no guidelines. If it were to be added to the ZO, he said that there should be a very clear idea of what is involved. He asked the question, "What would the ramifications be?". He said that he felt that the guidelines as complete as the Small Wind Energy ordinance (Article XIV-d)
Chair Willeke thanked him.
Mr. Block said that he did not want to relinquish control to the state (referring to the State Evaluation Committee - SEC). He said that the SEC would politely listen but do nothing and that local opinion would be ignored.
Mr. Webber said that if an applicant applied for a subdivision and abutters objected but all the criteria were met, the subdivision could be approved. He continued that a permitted uses does not mean an automatic green light and it should not be said that there is no oversight - he felt that was misleading.
Mr. Block reiterated that he felt there would be no local control.
Mr. Webber said that the SEC has an extensive process and that he felt confident that the abutters would be heard. He also said that he thought an application (for a Wind Farm) would be beyond the scope of the PB.
Mr. Block said that there was a certain logic to that because it would not be just an Antrim thing. It would be regional. He said that if a wind farm was a principal permitted use, any size wind farm could come into Antrim. He felt that the merits and requirements should be considered carefully. He continued that there were many projects across the country and the world and that there was much controversy. He said that he felt it was way too soon and that Antrim was not ready. He said that it would give the project a green light, that there should be a set of guidelines and that the people of Antrim should look at the merits first and then pass it on to the state.
Mr. Webber said that the question is "do Antrim residents agree to a wind farm on Tuttle Hill?" And since the question referred to one project, application could only be for a certain number of megawatts because the current transmission lines could only handle so much.
Mr. Block said that this could be referred to as "spot zoning". The ZO should not be changed to suit one landowner or project.
Chair Willeke said that there are guidelines that the town must use.
Ms. Gorman said that the PB has "pushed through and paved the road to give men who were born with a silver spoon". She continued that they were not even residents, did not pay taxes in the Rural Conservation District (RCD). She wanted to know why the PB would want to give away their rights. She said that Tuttle Mt. sat in the flyway of eagles. She recalled when the Contoocook River was composed of different colors and could not support life. Then she said that the river was cleaned up, the eagles and the nighthawks came back . She said that her family pays taxes and has done much volunteering. She said that the PB had laid out a red carpet for Eolian and that she saw it as a collusive relationship. She said that if the question were to go in the ballot box, it would be like opening a Pandora's box. She stated that Mr. Ott
(owner of land leased by Eolian) does not participate in the community and that it was unbelievable what had been done for these people (Eolian). She then said that she had a new release form (attached) that she would like the PB Members to sign.
Chair Willeke asked Ms. Gorman to hand him the forms.
She declined and said that she wanted to hand them to each member. She said that some of the PB members were "on the take".
Ms. Nelkens said that she has attended all the ZBA Met tower meetings and she did not know the information that had been gathered from the Met Tower.
Mr. Webber said that they were a private company, the Met Tower was on private land, and the data that had been collected was their data.
Ms. Nelkens said that if the data was not completely collected, was it appropriate to continue and secondly if Eolian has no money , how would the project work. She said that the question should be tabled for a year.
Chair Willeke said that it was the mission of the PB to look at the ZO and to modify as needed. The PB has determined that wind energy should be a permitted use. The ballot question asks the voters if it would be appropriate.
Ms. Nelkens asked if it were being done for one owner.
Mr. Burnside said no because another company could come in and file an application. The ballot question
will put the controversial issue to the voters to make the decision.
Ms. Nelkens said that it has happened too fast and that she felt that the townspeople needed to get educated.
Ms. Gorman said that it is against what the Open Space Committee recommends.
Mr. Klinger said that if it were a true democracy the townspeople should be educated about the wind. Although, he said that was for wind energy, the PB has negated the public's opinion, and that the townspeople have had to educate themselves. He felt that the issue should be tabled until the public is educated.
Ms. Block stated that there were 70 people in the room and 90% of those said that that the issue should be tabled.
Chair Willeke said that the PB's intention was to bring the issue to the whole town so that there were not seven people making the decision. The voters would make that determination.
Ms. Block said that during the Board meetings, the attendees were only allowed to talk about the Met Tower. The turbines would be twice as high. The Chair had said at a previous meeting (when an aerial photo of the Lempster turbines was shown) that the footprint would be very small, but she felt that was not true. She said that the presentation had been very biased.
Chair Willeke said that the PB was an unfunded Board and that they were all volunteers. By displaying the aerial shot of the Lempster Mt Wind Farm, he had wanted to show the scale of the wind farm.
Mr. Burnside stated that some people might thing the turbines hideous, and some would say that they are beautiful.
Mrs. Block said that the aerial is laughable. With a math and graphics background, she felt that the picture did not portray the turbines correctly. She thought that the question should be tabled.
Mr. Soinien said that he represented several landowners. He stated that it was appropriate to list as a permitted use and not as a special exception. If the project were to go to the State Evaluation Committee (SEC), it would be more onerous and costly for Eolian. The attorney general would be represented in the evaluation process. There would be opportunity for abutter feedback. The numerous, mandatory studies would be scrutinized by agencies that specialize in the process. The question of permitted use should be put before the voters of Antrim, not just a small number of the voters.
Chair Willeke asked Ms. Gorman to please be quiet.
Ms. Gorman continues to speak.
Mr. Soinien said the RCD allows a public utility as a principal permitted use. He commended the PB for bring in the question to the voters. The wind farm would be constructed on private land that is not under conservation easement. The private landowners have property rights.
Chair Willeke reminded Ms. Gorman that she could speak when it was her turn.
Mr. Beblowski thanked the PB. He continued that wind power should be allowed in certain places. He stated that the question should be tabled as a permitted use until a large wind ordinance could be written. He was concerned for the approximate 2000 acres which included the summits of Willard and Tuttle. Again, he asked the PB to table the ZO change – to move forward would be without controls. He said that he felt Antrim Wind Energy, LLC had been given carte blanche.
Mr. Cleland stated that the question should be tabled. He did not feel that the voters were educated enough to make the decision. He also wondered how Antrim would be affected in 15 years; was enough thought given to the residents; would a wind farm be a benefit to the town. He continued that the RCD would be destroyed and that it would be a tragedy just to save a dollar on property taxes. He said he just did not understand.
Ms. Law said that she concurred with Mr. Cleland, and asked if the PB would please table the question. She felt it would destroy the beauty of the area and that the rest of the people in town needed to be educated.
Ms. Nelkens was concerned about the Indiana bat – Antrim was on the northern most edge of the bat’s habitat. She added that the aerial shot shown at the previous meeting did not show the topographical of the ridge. She also asked what would happen if things did not work out and the towers remained.
Chair Willeke said that removal of the towers would be addressed in the Site Plan Review.
Mr. Block said that he has heard a lot about property rights. He asked, “What about my rights?” He said that he had a farm on which he wanted to live and enjoy but he would have to worry about shadow flicker, sound, and even now he did not want to look up and see the met tower. He said that the rights of the people who live here should be respected.
Mr. Soinien said that he had been willing to share any information. He stated that the process is very technical, but no one has asked for his information. It would be at least a year before the project began. He listed the land impact studies that needed to be done. He said that the evaluation, consideration, data, and information were an expensive undertaking that could not be done in a speculative environment. At this time, the placement of the turbines and the roads would not be set until all the data was in. Once that was completed, the information would be available.
Ms. Block said that it was a continuing theme from Eolian – that only they can understand the technical information. She continued that it has been stated from the beginning that the project is very similar to the Lempster Mountain Project. She stated that a lot of technical information is not needed to experience Lempster Mountain.
Ms. Pinello read from a prepared statement (attached). She said that major changes had been made to the ZO in 49 days (from the evening of 12/23 to 2/1). She talked about the illegality of the time line. She felt that the ZO changes for renewable energy and excavation were major changes and should be withdrawn.
Ms. Gorman said that she has continually heard that people should be able to do what they want with their property. She said that Mr. Webber could change his blueberry field into Wal-Mart. She stated that she felt the whole process is tarnished and taking advantage of the public. She stated that the abutters have educated themselves and that the people downtown don’t want it in their backyard so put it up in the RCD where the people downtown will not see it. She said that electric rate will probably go up and that $1/per thousand is a “small cup of coffee - to sell out the future of our town”. She referenced to a 100-acre farm that had been turned into a subdivision on Route 202. She said none of the lots have sold and that Antrim was becoming “like a third world country – because we have been sold out at every
end”.
Chair Willeke asked Ms. Gorman to stay on topic.
Ms. Gorman talked of profiteering in Afghanistan and how the people had been sold a rotten bill of goods. She stated that evaluations would drop – how would that be adjusted. She then stated that money was missing due to mis-management in Town Hall and asked “How did we get to this point?” She answered her own question by saying that it was because someone was willing to sell out. She felt that there was profiteering, selfishness, greediness, and evil.
Mr. Klinger questioned the testing of the data – had there been ample time. He stated that there was much information out there and that he would bring in information (some good, some bad) to educate the PB. He stated that the PB does not have to do this now and that it should be tabled.
5. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment 5 as proposed by the Planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows?
mend Article V – “Highway Business District” and Article VII “Rural District” to ADD
Excavation to Section B, 1 as Principal Permitted Uses.
Ms. Nelkens referred to the principal permitted (new) and not the special exception (current ZO regulations) – what was the rationale?
Chair Willeke said that there are problems with the process of applying for a special exception.
Ms. Nelkens wanted to know “how does that sit with the overall plan of the town?
Chair Willeke said that excavation is part of the Master Plan (Chapter VI of the 2010 Master Plan).
Mr. Beblowski asked what benefit (as a permitted use) did excavation sites bring to the town?
Chair Willeke stated that this PB is more economic minded than other Boards may have been
Ms. Gorman said she has been driving truck since 1982 and she has never seen a gravel pit that is capped and beautiful. She named some of the Antrim pits. She asked the PB what they thought that they were doing. She stated that the river is not important to the PB and that the watershed is in potential for huge destruction; once lost, it would be robbed from children and grandchildren. She pointed out how investments have tanked. People can not buy anything for $1. any longer. Children will thank the PB for saving the precious river – if the PB would do that.
Mr. Webber asked if excavation was being discussed.
Ms. Gorman said that someone on the Board has a conflict of interest and the question should be tabled.
Ms. Nelkens said that heavy trucks do a lot of damage and what is the advantage to having gravel.
Mr. Burnside said that there is a process which each Excavation Site operator has to follow. He said that a reclamation plan has to be filed. The Excavation Sites abide by RSA 155:E (state statute for gravel pits. If a town does not address sand and gravel, an applicant must seek a Special Exception. A pit was applied for in 2007 and the ZBA ruled a denial on abutter emotions. The question is now being put to the voters – yes or no to a principal permitted use. If no, the applicant would file for a special exception.
Mr. Beblowski asked the PB to table the question as well. He said that it is such a hardship for the neighbors and it scars the landscape.
Ms. Gorman said that the town used to use the Chadwick. It has never been reclaimed; that this was an example of what could happen. She stated that all these things are designed to take away rights. She said that she was “an American and why would anyone vote to give up their rights. She also said that the Town fathers should protect the Towns People”.
Ms. Law asked for clarification of Highway Business and RCD.
Mr. Block said that if a change (to the ZO) made, he felt it should be beneficial to the town. He said that the question should be tabled.
6. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment 6 as proposed by the Planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows?
Amend Article XIV-B – “Personal Wireless Service Facility” (PWSF) CHANGE TO READ
Section 4. ~DISTRICT REGULATIONS:
Location - PWSFs proposed to be located in or on existing structures shall be permitted in all Zoning Districts. Ground-mounted PWSFs shall be an permitted 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, applicants are discouraged from locating any portion of the facility within 300 feet of any abutting structure.
Applicants seeking approval for PWSFs shall first evaluate existing structures for the siting of PWSFs. Only after finding that there is no suitable existing structures pursuant to Section 4 herein, shall a provider propose a new ground mounted facility.
Mr. Moore explained that some of the wording had been changed due to input from Town Counsel, who said that the previous verbiage could be considered “effective prohibition” which is not allowed by the FCC and its FTC Act of 1996, and that a stipulation in the ordinance would likely be ruled unconstitutional. The textural modification suggested discouraging an applicant from placing the tower 300 yards from an abutting structure. Current PWSF ordinance stipulates that a thickly wooded screen of 150 feet is requires between facility and abutters. The Board could stipulate a lesser or greater distance than this.
Ms. Gorman said that she is not a learned person concerning PWSFs, but she does know that they can transmit microwaves and that there can be clusters of cancer in those areas. The PB should not be making it easier. She continued that in her sister’s neighborhood, there is a cell tower and there is a cluster of cancer in her neighborhood. She said that the PB should not make it easier, that it could be giving the neighbors a death sentence. She also said that her stepbrother worked with microwaves and he said that they are not good to have near by.
Mr. Webber said that studies have showed the pros and cons and that the real danger is right next to a cell phone not near the tower.
Ms. Gorman said that she would not want to see a cell tower mounted on a church steeple. She said that she feels nobody wants a cell tower. She continued that people come to NH for the scenery. She said that Mount Monadnock is sacred. The view should be improved because tourism is the number one money maker. She said that she is a naturalist and that the wildlife, birds, flora, and fauna are very important to her. She said that Franklin Pierce was born on historic properties right around the corner. She said that she felt windmills were not what tourists wanted to see. She continued that if Antrim wanted to make money the town should cap the methane and make its own energy. She finished by saying that the town and people waste money.
Mr. Webber said that AT & T had applied for a cell tower in Antrim. He explained that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave control to the Cell Tower companies and that the Town was limited in their requests.
Ms. Block asked if there were any limit to height and asked for the RCD to be removed from the question.
Mr. Moore said that the Cell Tower applications were encouraged to have up to 3 arrays. He said that the ballot question would remove the Village Business District and the Residential District.
Ms. Pinello said that she has worked in the cell tower industry and that Antrim’s PWSF ordinance is boiler plate but that it does not cover a lot of bases.
Mr. Beblowski questioned the wording and that it should be made clearer.
Ms. Nelkens said that she was concerned about the noise and how would that be dealt with.
Ms. Gorman asked what is a safe distance to protect citizens from radiation.
Mr. Moore explained what he knew about safe distance, but that the FTC of 1996 does not allow, perhaps wrongly, the consideration of potential health issues.
7. Amend Article XIV - “Supplemental Regulations”
Article XIV, Section O. – Home Occupations
Add reference to #7
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
8. Amend Article XVII – “Sign Ordinance”
Change incorrect reference in #3
Article XVII, Section E, 3
3. All signs shall conform with all provisions of Section C of this Article (Signs Prohibited in All Districts
Mr. Moore explained the “housekeeping language”, as well as the difference between home occupation and a home business.
Ms. Moore-Lazar said that she was pleased to see that the PB questions did not say that they are recommended by the PB.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Deliberation:
#1 Mr. Dubois moved to remove the word heat. Mr. Lazar seconded. Roll call vote: all ayes (5 yes).
#2 No changes.
# 3 No changes
#4 No changes
# 5 No changes
#6 Change – the word allowed to permitted . Mr. Webber moved to change the wording. Mr. Burnside seconded. Roll call vote: All ayes (5 yes)
#7 No changes
#8 No changes
Mr. Burnside moved to renumber the amendments (due to a copy and paste error). Mr. Webber seconded. Roll Call Vote: all ayes (5 yes).
Mr. Burnside moved to adjourn. Mr. Webber seconded. Roll Call Vote – all agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15.
Respectfully submitted by Diane M. Chauncey,
On behalf of the Antrim Planning Board
| 
