ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
May 19, 2011
Legal Counsel for the Planning Board as an Intervener (SEC)
Ad- Hoc Committee update
Members & Staff Present:
Diane Chauncey (Secretary) David Dubois (Member) Jesse Lazar (Vice-Chair)
Charles Levesque (Member) Martha Pinello (Member) Andrew Robblee (Chair)
John Robertson(Ex-Officio) Stephen Schacht (Alternate) Mike Tatro(Alternate)
Members & Staff Absent:
Scott Burnside (Member)
Public Attendees:
Rick Wood Bob Edwards Ben Pratt Dave Boule
Rob Michaelson Mike Bingham James Hankard Silas Little
7:00 PM :
Business Meeting:
- Mike Tatro – sworn in as Alternate
- Steve Schacht appointed to sit for the absent Mr. Burnside
- Discussion concerning Legal Counsel – Silas Little
Chair Robblee asked how Attorney Little is currently being paid.
Attorney Little said he has not yet sent a bill.
Attorney Little stated that the Planning Board (PB) or the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) is given the authority to raise and spend funds under the statute.
Chair Robblee questioned how he was willing to represent the Planning Board - without money.
Atty Little stated that he was trying to help out, but that he was not pro bono.
Chair Robblee stated that he understood the presence of the attorney and the fundraising. He said that he had voted for legal counsel and he had voted to request $10,000 from the Board of Selectmen (BOS) – but he was not aware of the work that had been done.
Mr. Levesque said that Atty Little had consulted with him about submitting pre-filed testimony for the SEC.
Chair Robblee said that he was taken by surprise when the testimonies [of Ms. Pinello and Mr. Levesque] showed up [Thursday morning]. He questioned why he did not know about it.
Mr. Levesque said that Atty Little had been hired for the purpose of advocating for the PB and its two approved positions: one to request intervener status before the SEC and the second, to oppose the SEC taking jurisdiction over the Antrim Wind project at this time.
Chair Robblee said that the money had not been appropriated, and since it had not been appropriated, he had thought that nothing else would take place.
Atty Little stated that in order to participate, the pre-file testimony must be done by 4:00PM tomorrow (4PM, May 20, 2011)
Ms. Pinello said that the PB had chosen not to list witnesses. Her name had been on a witness list
Chair Robblee said that three members of the Board had met with the attorney. Following the meeting, there had been no disclosure and that he felt that was deceptive.
Mr. Levesque said that since the date of the SEC granting the Planning Board intervener status (May 6), there was no Planning Board meeting so Atty Little worked on a strategy which he is putting forth for PB approval tonight
Mr. Levesque said that the motion had been passed to hire Atty Little to advocate for the Planning Board and that Atty Little was present in order to assist with the SEC preparation and that is what he did in preparing the draft testimony for M. Levesque and Ms. Pinello. He stated that there was a next day deadline and that the Board needed to make a decision to file the testimony or not – and it could choose to not approve it tonight.
Chair Robblee said that he was attempting to keep two items separate (as to what is going on):
1. Funding
2. Lack of transparency within the PB [one member had 10 pages of pre-file testimony and another member had 22 pages of pre-file testimony].
He then asked Mr. and Lazar and Mr. Dubois if they were aware that all this was going on.
Mr. Dubois said what do you mean by “all this going on?” He said that he too had been asked by someone outside the Board to give a testimony but declined and was aware that Ms. Pinello had a prepared testimony.
Chair Robblee said that it was “dirty and slimy all over again”. He stated that he had been elected Chair, and information needed to come through him. He had attempted to be fair and that he was not getting the fairness back. Four members were privy to information and three members were not. He did not think that it had been an oversight; rather that it had been convenient not to include all the members.
Ms. Pinello said she appreciated the Chair’s frankness. She stated that she had erred in not telling all PB members. She explained her position. She continued by explaining that other intervener groups participating in the SEC meeting had placed her on their lists. She prepared her personal testimony and had not shared it with others.
Atty Little said that he had been hired to represent the PB and not just for the hearing.
Ms. Pinello repeated that she had erred and apologized again.
Mr. Schacht asked Ms. Pinello who her testimony was for.
Chair Robblee said that he did not have an issue with the way Atty Little had prepared the information; he had an issue with the process. If Atty Little had been hired for the PB, why did he not know what was going on. He had hoped for openness and transparency.
Mr. Levesque stated that the Chair made a good point and apologized for what was going, but the preparation could not have been done prior to the last PB meeting since the SEC only told the PB that it had been granted intervener status until after the last PB meeting. The preparation had occurred in less than a week.
Chair Robblee said that if they did not want to be secretive, email could have been used. He said that he and the Planning Department staff had been taken by surprise.
Ms. Pinello apologized and said that she should have notified the Planning Board and repeated the information of her name being submitted by other groups. The Planning Board had not submitted a list of witnesses.
Mr. Robertson asked who Ms. Pinello would be testifying for – would it be outside of the Planning Board status. He said that Atty Little was hired to represent the Board and not just her. He stated that Ms. Pinello’s testimony should not be the Board’s testimony.
Mr. Levesque apologized. He said he should have let the Chair know this testimony was being prepared when that process started.
Mr. Levesque said that he would share that information in the meeting with Atty Little which needed to get done.
Mr. Schacht said that there had been deception and it had been done without the others [the other three PB members]. He said that he felt that the four PB members don’t care about the PB or the Town. He said that he thought it was wrong.
Ms. Pinello said that she had erred. The PB should have been notified.
Chair Robblee said that he wished to know which Planning Board members were aware. He stated that two of the new members had run [in the Town elections in March] to be transparent and clear and that they were not doing that within their own Board.
Mr. Robertson stated that the process had occurred behind the Chair’s back. If action had needed to be taken, the Chair should have been contacted, not just one or two members.
Chair Robblee agreed that he could have been made aware by simple email or phone call. Chair Robblee wanted to know why Board members had not specifically made sure that he and other members were made aware of the proceedings.
Ms. Pinello repeated her apology and stated “lack of understanding”. She stated that she could see where she had erred.
Mr. Lazar said that he was not going out of his way to share information with others, especially those who were opposed to the Planning Board making the case to the SEC. The Board of Selectmen were not going out of their way to ensure that I understand the case that they are building.
Chair Robblee asked “With me??”
Mr. Lazar said he was aware that the Planning Board was proceeding with testimony.
Chair Robblee asked Mr. Dubois if he thought this was right.
Mr. Dubois said that he had received a call concerning personal testimony. He did not know of the extent of the other information.
Atty Little said that he was to prepare testimony for the PB.
Mr. Levesque motioned that the PB continue to engage Atty Silas Little for the purpose of advocating for the PB relative to the SEC and to raise private money to pay for his services.
Mr. Lazar seconded.
Mr. Dubois asked a question. Is Atty Little willing to move forward knowing that there is no guarantee that he will be paid.
Atty Little stated that he recognized the issue – the BOS did not support the funding for an Attorney and that the PB needed representation as an intervener.
Roll call vote [yes – Atty Little as legal counsel for the Board; no – legal counsel not needed.]:
Mr. Levesque, yes; Mr. Lazar, yes; Mr. Robblee, no; Mr. Robertson, no; Ms. Pinello, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes; Mr. Schacht, no. Motion passes: 4 yes, 3 no.
Mr. Webber asked a question to the Chair, but directed toward Atty Little – Had Atty Little received any money.
Mr. Dubois said that it should be noted that the Planning Board had been told that $1100.00 was available in the legal budget prior to hiring Atty Little.
Atty Little said that he had received no money.
Mr. Wood asked – with a deadline occurring – what confidence did the Board have in the SEC process?
Mr. Levesque said that Atty Little was to propose a strategy for the Planning Board.
Mr. Hankard said that he was in support of the Planning Board - the majority of the Board wanted local control and that the issues would not be occurring if the Board of Selectmen had not gone to the SEC.
Chair Robblee said that those issues were outside of the role of the Board.
Mr. Hankard repeated that the majority of the Board wanted the Attorney and that he thought the Board should move forward.
Ms. Moore-Lazar said that she thought that transparency was important and that Mr. Robertson was in conflict.
Mr. Levesque said that it was very awkward.
Mr. Schacht said that Mr. Robertson is the ex-officio.
Chair Robblee said that he [the ex-officio] had a right to be here.
Mr. Hankard said that he [the ex-officio] should have recused himself from this – he should not have been allowed to vote.
Chair Robblee said that was a Selectmen issue.
Ms. Pinello stated that the ex-officio is a member of the Board. She continued that in a small community, people can play many roles and that those roles overlap and interweave. She said that there is a need to work and get along with each other and that Mr. Robertson is a voting member.
Mr. Hankard questioned about the money for the attorney fees.
Mr. Levesque said that the PB has not spent any money on legal expense as was implied in the Ledger-Transcript.
Chair Robblee said that there was a need to discuss the SEC strategy with Atty Little. In this discussion, Mr. Robblee stated that he realized that the prefiled testimony of Ms. Pinello and Mr. Levesque was for all intervenors and that Eolian would not ask Planning Board members to testify as the Planning Board was an intervenor.
- Meeting recess for consultation with Legal Counsel – Silas Little
The result of the meeting with legal counsel was that the testimony of Ms. Pinello and Mr. Levesque would be submitted to the SEC for the Planning Board. This was moved by Mr. Dubois and seconded by Mr. Levesque. Voted 6 in favor and the Chair abstaining.
- Review By-laws for changes – amendments and additions for PB approval – handout in packet
Tabled until completed by the secretary
- Report from Ad Hoc committee – Ms. Pinello/Chair Robblee
Ms. Pinello reviewed the minutes of the first meeting.
Mr. Robblee said that for his role in the AdHoc committee, he had reviewed Antrim’s Major Site Plan Review Checklist and he had found very little missing. He said that some things could be added. He had researched other towns’ ordinances – such as Groton, NH and the State of Maine. He realized that there were items that could be added, and asked the Board members for guidance.
Mr. Lazar asked if the Maine setback was appropriate. He also was concerned about the noise considerations and that the noise should not make the lives of the neighborhood miserable.
Chair Robblee said that research would be needed to add to the current regulation setbacks.
Ms. Pinello said that professional and legal advice would be needed to be clear about the consequences.
Chair Robblee said that as an example, there are safety setbacks.
Mr. Dubois said that there are industry standards.
Chair Robblee said that he would like lists of issues from the Board members.
Mr. Lazar stated that he was concerned how property values would be affected.
Ms. Pinello said that the larger, greater good should be viewed and that setbacks should be looked at in a consistent fair way.
Chair Robblee said that the role of the Planning Board dealt in ordinances and regulations.
Mr. Levesque stated that he believes one of the biggest issues is setbacks. Standard criteria are needed and structures are the issue.
Mr. Edwards stated that research had been done in other places where industry standards had been addressed and that information should be brought to the Planning Board.
Chair Robblee questioned what percentage of the population had issues with a wind farm.
Mr. Levesque said that it would be important to obtain interviews from the property owners in the subdivision near the Lempster Wind Turbines.
Ms. Pinello stated that one of the Ad Hoc committee members was putting together standard questions to ask.
Ms. Gard stated that she had been reviewing ordinances from other states and municipalities. Some of the ordinances were exhaustive, such as, Jackson, ME. She said that the State of Maine had passed a statute which identified towns that were expedited for permitting – which then provoked an action in other towns to make exhaustive regulations – where people got together and put together wind ordinances that were not under cut by the State Statute.
Ms. Gard continued that one town was set against another. She was concerned that an ordinance should be created that looked at the future.
Chair Robblee stated that an ordinance should work for a town as well as the developer.
Ms. Gard said that it was important to build something into the ordinance for the people that are impacted – possibly a mitigation waiver that is recorded with the land.
Ms. Pinello asked for any specific questions or concerns from the Board or public attendees. She said that the Ad Hoc committee would continue to meet once a week and that the next meeting would concern ordinance topics.
Chair Robblee said that there was a need to get the fundamentals and that he would like to get input from AWE.
Town Planner Position –some of the points discussed are as follows:
- One member said that the Planning Department was mired and flooded with work
- Another member suggested Renee Rabideau, Paul Vasques, or SWRP s interim choices
- If the SEC takes jurisdiction of the project, the Selectmen would not support the rehiring of a Town Planner
- The ex-officio stated that there was not much going on and suggested that the Planning Board work with the Selectmen and find a solution
- Another member said that the ex-officio was not forward thinking and that a professional skill set was necessary for the up and coming zoning and planning issues.
- The Chair stated that the secretary should be utilized – she was capable
- A member said that the secretary was good as a clerical but that she was not a professional
- A member said that the Planning Board was in agreement that a Town Planner was needed and that it was necessary to go before the Board of Selectmen with 673:16 that allowed the Planning Board to hire a Planner
- The Chair stated that much will depend on the SEC decision
- It was repeated that a skilled person was needed
- The necessity of a Planner was repeated
- The possibility of altering the employee handbook should be considered
- The necessity of communication and a critical need for two people was noted
After the above discussion, it was determined that two members of the Planning Board – Jesse Lazar and Charles Leveque and the ex-officio should discuss the position with the Selectmen.
Mr. Lazar stated that he wanted to change the employee handbook so that it complies with state law.
Mr. Levesque asked Mr. Robertson to set up a meeting to begin this discussion. He said that he would.
Status of Escrow Accounts – handout
The escrow accounts were discussed and it was determined that the Secretary should discuss the bonds with Mighty Oaks, Green Ridge Road, and Pierce Lakes II – the discussion should include protection for the community.
Revisit the motion to create the ad-hoc committee to amend the number of PB members on the committee
Attorney Little had said that there should not be a Planning Board quorum on the committee. Mr. Dubois moved to change the make up of the AdHoc Planning Board members from 4 to 3. Mr. Levesque seconded. By a voice vote, all were in favor.
Mr. Levesque moved that Mr. Dubois be appointed to the Ad Hoc committee. Mr. Lazar seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Review and approve/amend minutes of May 5, 2011 – done
Work Session - if time permits no time
Public Hearing: Continued from April 21, 2011
- Pursuant to IRC/IBC R108.2, changes to the Building Permit Application Fee Schedule are being proposed for adoption by the Planning Board / Board of Selectmen (not subject to vote of the legislative body) – Mr. Peter Hopkins (Building Inspector) will present
Mr. Lazar moved to continue the public hearing to the June meeting. Mr. Dubois seconded. By a voice vote all were in favor.
Correspondence:
- NH Land Surveyors Association – Concern for signature and seal on certified plot plans, site plans, etc. and the laws which apply – handout in packet - FYI
- SW Regional Planning commission monthly newsletter – handout in packet - FYI
- SW Regional Planning Commission – Local Planning Assistance Services – handout in packet - FYI
- Residents’ emails concerning legal fees and the future of the wind farm – handout - FYI
- Town of Stoddard ZBA – May 25- 7:15pm- Town Hall- Special Exception for Cell Tower (AT&T) - FYI
Other Business:
- Mr. Levesque stated that money needed to be raised for legal counsel, and he asked for help with that.
Mr. Lazar stated that he would be willing to assist.
- Chair Robblee requested from the PB Members that information for the meetings or the agenda were to go thru the Chair.
9:20 pm, Mr. Levesque motioned to adjourn. Mr. Dubois seconded. All yes to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Chauncey, Secretary of the Planning Board
| 
