ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
March 9, 2011
Public Meeting to Reconsider ZO Changes
Members & Staff Present:
Scott Burnside (Vice-Chair) Diane Chauncey (Staff) David Dubois (Member)
Jesse Lazar (Member) Peter Moore (Planner) Andrew Robblee (Member)
Stephen Schacht (Alternate) Gordon Webber (Ex-Officio) CR Willeke (Chair)
Joe Koziell (Member)
Members & Staff Absent:
Public Attendees:
Shelly Nelkens Jon Soinenen Mike Genest Ben Pratt
Sarah Gorman Mike Genest Karen Weisswange Albert Weisswange
James Hankard Molly Moore Kara Penney Jeanne Plourde
Michael Pon Jack Kenworthy Mike Tatro Lois
Stuart Gross John Robertson Ron Haggett Keith Klinger
Mrs. Klinger Janet McEwan Richard Block Mr. Schaefer
Dave Boule Galen Stearns Bill Gutgesell Donna Hanson
Ann Proctor Annie Law Mrs. Ullman Mr. Ullman
Dave Duffy Fred Colton Arthur Merrill Helene Newbold
Bill Newbold Beth Merrill Charles Leveque Ray Ledgerwood
Andy Chapman Melissa Chapman Mary Allen Teri Moore
Leah Tokunga Lyman Gilmore Sarah Gorman Elsa Voelcker
Janis Longgood Ryan Storro Virginia Dickinson Connie Kirwin
Bob Bernstein Eric Tenney Linda Tenney
Lucille Lacombe Mary Schacht
Public Meeting:
Mr. Moore recognized the departing members: Joe Koziell, CR Willeke, and ex-officio, Gordon Webber. He thanked them for their hard work.
Mr. Moore congratulated the newly elected members – Charles Levesque and Martha Pinello.
Chair Willeke asked Mr. Moore to review the events leading up to this meeting.
Mr. Moore said that the language of the proposed Zoning Ordinance (Z0) Amendments had been finalized at the December 23, 2010 Planning Board meeting. A Public Hearing had been scheduled for January 6, 2011 which was subsequently continued to January 20, 2011. Because there had been substantive changes to the language, another Public Hearing was scheduled for February 1, 2011. At that meeting, the language was finalized but the February 1, 2011 Public Notice had a procedural defect – not enough information. The proposed ZO amendments would therefore not be voted on the March 8, 2011 ballot.
Mr. Moore continued: on February 10, 2011, it was voted to withdraw the ZO ballot. On February 22, a Planning Board meeting, requested by the PB Chair (48-hour notice, posted properly) was held. The February 22 meeting was predicated by a citizens’ petition. The notice stated that there would be an opportunity for public comment –public comment did not occur.
Mr. Moore said that he had been contacted by Mr. Soinien concerning possible procedural defects of the noticing and amendment language for the March 9 meeting. Mr. Moore said that he was not aware of any of the notice preparations– that it had been outside of his scope. He said that he had spoken with Mr. Stearns (Town Administrator) who had assured him that the February 22 was completely legal. He then read a letter from the Local Government Center (LGC) from whom he had requested an opinion. The LGC said that the Planning Board had made a decision at the February 22 meeting and that decision should stand.
Mr. Moore reviewed the admininistrative and notices for the meeting. There were concerns that the February 1 meeting was null and void – not a valid meeting.
Mr. Moore had reviewed the materials and developed an annotation of the amendment language as presented in the public notice and advised that there were some potential problems. Mr. Stearns suggested that the annotation go to Town Counsel. Mr. Moore sent the annotation and 7 supporting documents via email. A conference call with Town Counsel, the Selectmen, and Mr. Moore was scheduled. Mr. Moore explained that he had advised the Planning Board of potential problems.
Mr. Moore said that Town Counsel had suggested an alternative, perhaps more rational and cautious approach. That they could step back, slow down, and develop sound language or an ordinance. This could provide control above the simple site plan review. He said that he would suggest language for a large project that would have appropriate definitions and components such as, standards for setback, noise, shadow flicker and mitigation. He said that there should be a definite process for appeals, violations, decommissioning, property assurance value, and bonding. The Planning Board needed to provide expectations to protect the town and
better guide the applicant.
Mr. Webber asked if the Town Planner was expressing his personal point of view or that as Town Planner.
Mr. Moore said that it was his job as Town Planner to guide the Board.
Chair Willeke said that it seemed that he was expressing his own opinion.
Mr. Moore said that Town Counsel had suggested that the Board slow down.
Mr. Webber said that Mr. Moore had strayed from Town Counsel recommendations.
Chair Willeke asked the Town Planner to wrap up what he had been saying.
Mr. Moore said that he was finished.
Chair Willeke thanked him and asked him to read the Public Notice.
Mr. Moore read the notice and said that it had been posted properly in The Villager on February 25, 2011.
Chair Willeke stated his ground rules: attendees would speak one at a time at the central microphone. The comments would be addressed to the Board – there should be no questions addressed to the audience. Each speaker would be limited to discussion of the amendment and three minutes per person. The meeting would end at 10:00pm. He stated that Town Counsel had concerns with the language of Amendments # 5 and #6 (Excavation and Cell Towers) and so it would not be a part of the discussion.
Public Hearing:
Amendment # 1 – read by Chair Willeke. He said that the comments should be limited to the definition.
Ms. Dickinson (West St) - stated that wind turbines greater than 100kw had been discussed – but was there anything less than 100kw.
Ms. Nelkens (North Main St) – the issue of data collection should also be included in the definition.
Mr. Hankard (Clinton RD) – supported the Town Planner in that the definition of a wind energy facility is not complete; The Planning Board should not rush the issue and make a big mistake like Lempster.
Ms. Gorman (Keene Rd) – read from prepared statement. She said that it was not in best interest of the people, that there should be an education of the general public, that there was a conflict with the Open Space Committee…
Chair Willeke asked that her comments were to be specific to the definition.
Ms. Gorman continued that the current definition was open ended, that it needed to be well thought out, that there would be time to elaborate and to get real people involved.
Chair Willeke said that she would have an opportunity to speak during the discussion of the next meeting.
Ms. Gorman said that (the current definition) was not a definition.
Mr. Webber asked her to hold off until #4
Ms. Gorman said she had a verbal protest to the inadequacy of the definition.
Mr. Klinger – (Keene Rd) – said that there should not be a rush to judgment; that the definition is very vague. He listed what would be needed and summarized by saying the Board should back up ad reevaluate.
Mr. Bernstein - (Turner Hill Rd) – asked the Board how they had come to the definition – who had been consulted. He said that he did not know if the is a definition is a good one.
Chair Willeke said that the Planning Board had developed the definition.
Mr. Bernstein asked if any outside expertise had been brought in. Was there a definition that had been used elsewhere?
Chair Willeke said that research had been done.
Ms. Penny (West St) – said that she trusted the Board and asked if they felt it was okay. She asked the Board – “please don’t screw this up!’
Chair Willeke said that the Board was happy with the definition.
Mr. Perry asked how the 100kw affected the other Zoning Ordinances (districts?).
Mr. Bernstein felt that Mr. Perry should not be mentioning that – as a point of order.
Chair Willeke said that it was a definition which was needed as a starting point.
Mr. Webber said that there was a small wind energy ordinance for personal use. And that 99kw was where the Small Wind kilowatts ended.
Mr. Burnside stated that the attendee was just asking for clarification.
Mr. Soinien asked a procedural question – would the comments in writing be addressed by the Board and in what order – amendment by amendment or in some other way?
Chair Willeke asked if there were any letters.
Mr. Moore said that there were letters that were wind related and eleven letters that were generic.
Ms. Nelkens said that she had many question and wanted feed back from Mr. Moore about the definition.
Chair Willeke said that he would like the definition process explained.
Mr. Moore stated that the definition for wind energy was intentionally left fairly simple. In Article III of the ZO the definitions are defined as a word, meaning not as an ordinance would be developed. They are created for the definition section not as a wind energy facility ordinance.
Mr. Hankard – point of order concerning the three-minute limit and how many times an audience member could step up to the microphone. He then said that no one on the Board is a wind energy expert.
Chair Willeke said that if anyone had questions concerning the Board, they were welcome to attend the meetings. (1st and 3rd Thursday of the month)
Mr. Block wished to know if the information given was “starting fresh”? and he would like to make a statement.
Chair Willeke said that it should be concise.
Mr. Block said that Antrim has an Ordinance that clearly spells out “Small Wind”. He said that there is not a comparable (ordinance for large wind). Therefore, it would be completely wide open with no restrictions on sound, light, etc. His comment to the Board is that it is very detrimental to the RCD – “so vague, wide open, etc. and that it should not be put in when something is that questionable”.
Mr. Apkarian said that the definition should be modified. He said that there would be different impacts on different communities and that there should be more specifics.
Ms. Allen stated that a wind farm needed many roads and that she had seen nothing about transportation within the proposed amendments.
A Board member said that would be a part of the Site Plan Regulations. (who said this?)
Ms. Kirwin said that if the wind farm was built, she would be able to see it from her home, but she agreed with the definition.
Mr. Haggett said that the definition should be eliminated and a large wind ordinance should be written.
Chair Willeke closed the comments for Amendment #1.
Amendment #4 –
Mr. Klinger said the RCD land was important in the ZO. The use should be for conservation land. The proposed ordinance “flies in the face of the Master Plan” and should be tabled. He said that he agreed with Mr. Moore. The wind farm should be in the commercial zone.
Ms. Gorman read from a prepared statement. These are some of the issues she presented: the reason for zoning is to protect; the ZO should not be changed to suit one land owner; the change is not in the best interest of the town; the people of the town should be educated; an inappropriate location; it is not in the best interest of the town and not ethical; the watershed should be protected; the RCD is not some kind of wasteland – it should not be taken from family and friends so that a few might profit.
Mr. Hankard asked who requested the ZO.
Chair Willeke said that the Planning Board welcomes all to a Board meeting.
Mr. Koziell said that the minutes of the Board meetings could be reviewed.
Mr. Webber reviewed the sequence of events that had led up to the current meeting. He finished by saying that the issue would no go away.
Mr. Hankard said that it had been started by Eolian.
Mr. Robblee said that the Board had decided that the vote should go to the Antrim voters – they would decides whether or not a wind farm would be a permitted use. The question is simple – do you or do you not want a wind farm.
Mr. Hankard asked if it was at the request of Eolian.
Mr. Robblee said that the vote would give a clear picture to the town. The Planning Board has a sincere interest in whether the town wants the amendment or not.
Mr. Burnside said and possibly the town may want a different process.
Mr. Hankard said that Eolian is not a resident.
Chair Willeke said that the Board’s job is to look at the ZO and specific issues that are currently occurring.
Ms. Dickinson asked what would happen next. Would there be a vote in April.
Chair Willeke said that he was trying to wrap up the hearing process.
Ms. Dickinson asked if this would be the final hearing.
Chair Willeke said that there has been a request for a Special Town Meeting.
Mr. Pratt read from a prepared statement. He said that the citizens of Antrim needed an opportunity to vote. There had been active discussions, numerous public hearings to debate the pros and cons, repetition of previously stated arguments. The Planning Board will not make the decision – they can only make changes or additions. The people can vote them up or down. He finished by saying that the citizens of Antrim should be given an opportunity to vote.
Some audience members clapped.
Chair Willeke thanked him.
Mr. Bernstein said that he had one comment, that he agreed with the previous speaker, but that some of the voters are uninformed and what would the process be to make them more informed. He further said that a cell tower had been proposed for his neighborhood and that his property would have been devalued by 25%. He questioned if Antrim would be the only community in NH to allow a wind farm.
Chair Willeke said that there are towers in Lempster.
Mr. Block said that no town has given a wind farm “blanket allowance”. Antrim would be the first. He then said that he begged to differ with Mr. Pratt – there had not been ample time to educate the voters. He had been shut down – only comments about met towers were allowed. The down side of big wind had not been discussed and ramifications had been misrepresented to the people of the town. The Planning Board had one reason to rush it through – to do away with the court cases and save the town money. Mr. Block said that he could guarantee the court cases would not go away. He said that violation of due process had occurred.
Chair Willeke asked Mr. Block to stop.
Mr. Block had further comments on allowed use and the court case.
Chair Willeke said the court case was not part of the hearing.
Mr. Block said that he had been shut down and not been able to speak. The Board was trying to shut him down and do away with the court case.
Chair Willeke asked if he had any input on the amendment.
Mr. Block said he could talk about the negative side.
Chair Willeke asked him to stop.
Mr. Block said that the amendments should be tabled so that people could learn more.
Some audience members clapped.
Mr. Robblee said that he had been disappointed that the Blocks were not at the Grange event.
Mr. Block said that they had planned to attend but the Grange invited Eolian and he did not want to hold a debate.
Mr. Robblee repeated that he had been disappointed.
Ms. Crockett asked if the question was to change the amendment – not about accepting a wind facility – correct or incorrect?
Ms. Nelkens began to say that the Blocks had been invited.
Chair Willeke asked Ms. Nelkens to stop.
Ms. Nelkens continued.
Chair Willeke said that the hearing this evening was not about what has happened at the Grange.
Ms. Nelkens said that she had been at every meeting and she has not been able to give input on an industrial wind farm, yet Eolian has had plenty of time to speak.
Chair Willeke said that he had heard her speak many times.
Ms. Nelkens said that she did not know all the impacts [of the wind farm]. She said that she had heard that there would be $200,000 in tax benefits but, she wanted to know if everything had been weighed. She said that she agreed with Mr. Moore and that things should be taken slow and asked “what is the rush?”
Mrs. Moore said that she had forgotten what ordinance was being discussed. She said that the language is to allow a permitted use. And what it really comes down to is - permitted use rather than by special exception. “Permitted use is the problem!”
Mr. Gutgesell stated that many residents have complained about gas and electric prices. He said that he would like more information and felt that all should keep an open mind. He said that he is not for or against, and that all should be open minded.
Mr. Cleland said that he agreed with Mr. Moore and that Antrim is not the only town with the problem [an industrial wind farm] and that other environmental groups are holding forums in Maine. He said that he felt more education was needed. He thought the issue should be tabled. He felt that one person is trying to push it thru – because he would benefit from it.
Ms. Volker said that she lived less than a mile away from possible flicker factor. She was concerned about [a wind farm] “going into the Rural Conservation District – a huge corridor of wild life –it flies in the face of the Master Plan”. She said that it should not be a permitted use. She had been listening to WGBH about a Cape Cod town – the whole town hates it[wind turbines]. She talked about bus trips to Lempster – sounded like a jet plane and she does not want to hear that sound. She was also concerned about flicker factor – “she did not want it crammed down their throats and that some experts should think about this”.
Ms Longgood stated that she wanted to go on record as being against Amendment #4 and specifically “principal permitted use in the RCD”. She would like to see the ZO amendment tabled and hoped that the new Planning Board Members would be against wind energy in the RCD.
Mr. Klinger – how long will it be before there is a construction date?
Chair Willeke – no idea [no application has been submitted].
Mr. Klinger stated that there should be no rush to judgment. He asked why it should be “jammed down our throats” He said that he agreed with Mr. Moore – that more education is needed, it has been very biased and one-sided, no due process has been done, the Planning Board’s job is to educate the people, the Planning Board was elected to serve the people. He continued that he agreed with wind energy but this is not for the right purpose.
Ms. Zaluki-Stone said that more time was needed. She felt that it was the general consensus and asked to please allow that to be done.
Ms. Law said that she agreed with those who had asked for the issue to be tabled, education is needed, and there should be no principal permitted use.
Ms. Penney stated that she felt the ZO is “sketchy” about meanings of Special Exception and Principal Permitted Use. She said that she feels “sort of educated” and wanted to be able to vote and agreed with Ben Pratt.
Ms. Schacht thanked the Board members for serving on the Planning Board. She knew that it could be a thankless job. She thought that the people should be allowed to vote.
Chair Willeke asked for some of the letters to be read:
1. Cynthia & Mike Kettle – strongly support Antrim Wind Energy and Special Town Meeting
2. Apryl Perry – Requested the right to vote on the amendments
3. Nancy Burnham – Vote to hold special town meeting
4. Jim & Bev Schaefer – Expressed concern for wind power in Antrim, they had seen the benefits of wind power in Texas. Their Antrim neighbors had caused conflict. The noise of their dogs is 24/7. They asked the support of renewable energy with a special vote.
5. Christian Phillips – Believed that the proposal should be allowed.
6. Judith Bertoglolio-Giffin – Against #4 –She felt that it was a complex ordinance and that maybe there should be an ad hoc committee to discuss the possibilities.
- Ms. Bartlett – Against the adoption of #4 and #5. She said that they had not been adequately addressed and she had questions concerning the statistics.
- Loranne Block – Asked that the issue be tabled.
- Robert Reeser – Against #4 and #5. He felt that there would be a significant impact on 80% of the land in the town. If it were to pass, there would be a Site Plan Review before the Planning Board. It would not go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. An ad hoc committee should be formed.
10. Linda Tenney – Opposed to the adoption of #4 and #5. She was concerned about its affect. She worried about wildlife and a rush to judgment. She questioned – “would you want this facility in your back yard?”
11. Jane Fluhr – In support of #1 and #4 – could be a positive change.
Ms. Gorman said that people are misinformed. Coal and carbon dioxide need intact green spaces. The earth can deal with carbon dioxide. She said that the methane from the dairy farm and land fill could be capped and energy derived from it.
Chair Willeke asked Ms. Gorman to stay on topic.
Ms. Gorman said that she will not be able to sell her house. Her father-in-law had chopped the way for the Kancamaugus Highway. She continued that it [the wind farm] was not a good place for an industrial zone. She said that she was concerned about the steep slopes, the damage that the cranes would cause. She said that the people downtown don’t care about the North Branch people. PSNH would sell outside of the state. The cost of electricity has not gone down but the cost of cordwood has increased three times. She said that she was going to work on secession. She said that she paid taxes but got no respect. She said that she was intimidated by the police and that the Planning Board members have an agenda. The voters need to be better educated.
Chair Willeke thanked her.
Letters continued:
- Peter Beblowski – Thanked CR Willeke and Joe Koziell for their hard work and thankless tasks. In a town wide vote, two new Planning Board members had been elected. The posting had been done in haste by Gordon Webber. “Done in haste, create waste”. There were still legal issues. A new committee should be formed.
13.Martha Pinello –Thanked CR Willeke and Joe Koziell. She was unable to attend the because it was Ash Wednesday - she thought it inappropriate to schedule a meeting on a night when there should be respect for religious holidays. She felt that there had been numerous clerical and typo errors or an egregious nature. She felt that the entire package should be removed.
14. Brendan Carey Block – He stated that he was a young citizen who will be paying taxes for many years. He questioned the technical changes and the rush into legislation. He felt that there needed to be more discussion.
15. Richard Block – Does not agree. There had been procedural errors – he specified the RSAs. He explained one of the errors – excavation site as opposed excavation – ….within 300’ of a disapproving abutter. The correction was not in the proposed amendments and that would be sufficient to raise validity.
16. Jack Kenworthy – (paraphrased by Mr. Moore) –Letter had been submitted to the Planning Board with a “few key facts”:
In support of the special town meeting
In 2010 straw poll – 100 voters – high percentage in favor of a wind as renewable energy
In 2011 straw poll – 64% were in support of a wind farm
In American Research Survey – 2/3 of the respondents were in favor of ordinance changes
The process was well documented with debates and public forums
After some noise from the audience, Chair Willeke asked for quiet.
Mr. Kenworthy said that the pertinent issue is that two parties are in lawsuits. If the use becomes a permitted use, Eolian would withdraw its lawsuit.
Ms. Nelkens asks for a point of order.
Audience gets upset – opposition does not want Mr. Kenworthy to speak.
Mr. Kenworthy wants to go forward with study.
Chair Willeke said that he has allowed numerous people go past 3 minutes.
Mr. Tatro stated that he was in support of the ZO amendments, and asked if the Town Hall was available for an educational forum.
Mr. Apkarian had not received the survey [American Research Survey]. He stated that the [March 8 Selectmen’s straw poll] was a “tainted process”. People were advised how to vote and “as a scientist – holds no water”. He said that an open forum was needed where data could be compared and then the data could speak for itself.
Chair Willeke said that a good way to get a feeling for the wind farm is to go to Lempster.
Mr. Mark Schaefer said that the Planning Board was doing a great job. He had a question on the words “principal permitted use” – could that language be changed to the other option of a special exception.
Chair Willeke said that in Deliberation, the Planning Board would decide upon the final language of the ZO amendments.
Mr. Mark Schaefer – Opposed to the industrial wind turbines and excavation. His property abuts one of the newly leased parcels. The RCD was preserved for special reasons. He repeated that he was fully against the proposed amendments.
Ms. Gard – She questioned Eolian. Since they were such a small company, she wondered if there was enough data to support a commercial operation. Was it a viable site. She also questioned the special exception, the possible site plan review, and several different ways to approach the project.
Chair Willeke said that he understood the site to have viable data.
Ms. Gard questioned if the appropriate vehicle was being used.
Mr. Lamb stated that he had heard multiple comments that no experts had weighed in on the issue. He said that was not true because there had been a Limrik article written by Steve Sawyer ( an Antrim property owner) who is now one of the top five environmental stewards of the world. He is now an expert of wind energy. Mr. Lamb and Mr. Sawyer were childhood friends and although, Mr. Lamb has disagreed with him on other things, he agrees with him on this issue. He said that he thought the article was eloquently written, told what Antrim is all about, and that the project has a real importance to the future of the town.
Ms. Moore-Lazar said that she had an idea “ maybe totally crazy” – but would the Planning Board consider – three questions – “Vote for One: Special exception, Permitted use, Not interested”.
Mr. Perry – He said he was not an expert, but he had taken the time to educate himself – even though he is busy with his own business and raising two teenagers. He had spent time in Lempster. He thought it would be a great use of the RCD and there would be no co2 emissions.
Public Hearing closed.
Amendment #2, #3, #7, #8 – no discussion or comments
Mr. Hankard said that at the straw poll there had been negative comments.
Chair Willeke reminded the audience that the Public Hearing had been closed.
Mr. Webber moved to table amendments #5 and #6.
Mr. Robblee suggested to go through the amendments in the order listed.
#1
Mr. Lazar said that he had a problem with the version of the proposal. He said that he thought the last version was the only usable language. He said that the current definition is something that will get response. A Bed & Breakfast can only be allowed by Special Exception, but if this amendment were to pass as a principal permitted use, an industrial wind farm would be allowed. He said that the Planning Board should have taken more time and he felt that they had failed in that regard. He said that the Zoning Ordinance similar to the Small Wind Energy Ordinance or the Personal Wireless Service Facility Ordinance – rather than just use ballot box to get a yes or no.
Mr. Lazar moved to table amendment #1. Mr. Dubois seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, no; Mr. Burnside, no; Chair Willeke, no; Mr. Robblee, no; Mr. Webber, no; Mr. Lazar, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes. Motion does not pass
.
Mr. Koziell moved to accept the definition as written. Mr. Webber seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
#2
Mr. Webber moved to accept Amendment #2 as written. Mr. Koziell seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
#3
Mr. Koziell moved to accept Amendment #3 as written. Mr. Robblee seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
#4
Mr. Lazar said that Amendment highlighted a lack of thoughtfulness. He motioned to table the amendment. Mr. Dubois seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, no; Mr. Burnside, no; Chair Willeke, no; Mr. Robblee, no; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes. Motion does not pass
Mr. Webber moved to accept Amendment #4 as written. Mr. Koziell seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
#5 and #6
Chair Willeke suggested tabling Amendment #5. Town Counsel saw some wording issues and suggested another Public Hearing.
Vice-Chair Burnside moved to hold a Public Hearing to correct the postings of Amendments 35 and #6. Mr. Robblee seconded the motion.
There was a discussion concerning the wording of the amendments, a Public Hearing, how this had become part of the agenda, a proper posting for public input, etc. The motion was withdrawn.
Vice Chair Burnside moved to hold a Public Hearing for Amendments #5 and #6. Mr. Koziell seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
#7
Mr. Webber moved to accept Amendment #7 as written. Vice-Chair Burnside seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
#8
Mr. Koziell moved to accept Amendment #8 as written. Mr. Webber seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
Mr. Webber made the motion to consider a Special Town Meeting for Amendments #1,2,3,4,7.8.
Mr. Lazar felt that no Special Town Meeting was warranted.
Mr. Robblee said that he disagreed. He felt that an overwhelming number of residents wanted to have the right to vote.
Mr. Lazar disagreed and said that only 61% had responded. The two newly elected Planning Board members clearly showed that people have changed their minds.
Mr. Robblee said that when there is a vote – the voters will answer.
Mr. Lazar asked “will the voters be educated on land use, will they continue to make the Zoning Ordinance uniform?”
Mr. Robblee said that the Planning Board can not hold every voters hand.
Mr. Lazar repeated that he did not think it was a good idea.
Mr. Lazar made the motion to table the request for the motion for a Special Town Meeting. Mr. Dubois seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, no; Mr. Burnside, no; Chair Willeke, no; Mr. Robblee, no; Mr. Lazar, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes. Motion does not pass
Mr. Webber restated his motion.
Vice-chair Burnside said that he was worried that not enough people will turnout for the vote.
Roll call vote: Mr. Koziell, yes; Mr. Burnside, yes; Chair Willeke, yes; Mr. Robblee, yes; Mr. Webber, yes; Mr. Lazar, no; Mr. Dubois, no. Motion passes
At 9:50pm, Mr. Koziell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Burnside seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Chauncey, Secretary of the Planning Board
Mr. Lazar’s Prepared Statement
Mr. Chairman,
The decision to hold another emergency meeting this month was a poor choice, and the
notice was poorly written. This puts the Planning Board in a poor light. How can residents respect our Board when we cannot properly notice. How can they respect our impartiality? There is no reason we should be here for this as an emergency meeting. This matter would more appropriately be addressed at our next regularly scheduled meeting. What do you plan to do when we receive a petition to reconsider our actions from this meeting?
We met as board on February 10th for an emergency meeting and addressed the issue of whether we would recommend a special town vote at that time. We then cancelled
the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting, and now we are back at another
emergency meeting, despite the fact that our next scheduled meeting is March 3rd.
There is no new information to be heard on the case, simply a petition by citizens
who want us to reconsider having a special vote. There is simply no justification
for this emergency meeting. Nothing that we as a board are going to address now could not have waited until March 3rd.
Jesse Lazar
| 
