ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING
June 30, 2011
Out of schedule Work Session
With the Ad Hoc Committee
Members & Staff Present: Diane Chauncey (Secretary) David Dubois (Member)
Jesse Lazar (Member) Charles Levesque (Member) Martha Pinello (Member) Andrew Robblee (Chair) John Robertson (Ex-Officio)
AD Hoc Committee
Mary Allen Barbara Gard Bob Edwards
Members & Staff Absent:
Scott Burnside (Member) Stephen Schacht (Alternate) Mike Tatro (Alternate)
Public Attendees:
Ron Haggett Ben Pratt Mike Genest Rick Wood
Pauline Robertson Gordon Webber Melanie Blackman Karen Weisswange
Mark Schaefer Brenda Schaefer Loranne Block Richard Block
Annie Law Bob Cleland Molly Moore-Lazar Janis Longgood
7:00 PM – Review Period
7:15PM – Work Session
Planning Board and Ad Hoc committee review input from June 22, 2011 meeting
Chair Robblee asked that the Board members introduce themselves. He then asked Ms. Pinello to update the work of the Ad Hoc committee.
Ms. Pinello commented on the following:
The committee has had 7 weekly meetings, including a Public Input Session.
The committee had a draft Utility Scale Wind Facility Ordinance.
A short history of the work thus far
The committee requested professional assistance – consultants for planning, sound, siting
Public Input Session – People were supportive and liked the format of the meeting
The Planning Board and Ad Hoc Committee discussed the following:
There were two draft ordinances that were being melded together.
There has been a strong cry from the public for documents concerning the ordinance to be
posted on the town’s website. The committee would like to see this happen.
The information should also be available at the town hall in hard copy.
The public should be able to do their own research with the materials that are made available.
The information that the public wants:
Criteria for setbacks.
What will happen to property values?
The possibility of buy-outs
Setbacks and mitigation
Agreements from municipalities with Utility Scale Wind Facilities (USWF)
Noise and setbacks
Hunting access
Difference between an ordinance and an agreement
Need for the information concerning the USWF to be accessible by the Public
Information should be at the Town Hall, Library, and on the website
Possibility of hiring someone to come in to create the information on the website
Standalone Approach – to amending Antrim Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations for Utility Scale Wind Energy Facilities
Ms. Allen spoke of her work on the committee. She had taken aspects of the site plan review that would apply to the USWF. She stated that a developer should be able to acquire the ordinance an regulations and know all the criteria that needed to be satisfied. She stated that a developer would be able to take the ordinance/regulations and all aspects of the application would be included. The USWF presents a unique situation in multiple ways. She discussed the leasing situation in which multiple parcels with different ownership had been secured. The area that will be used will be a specific part of a large piece of property. She stated that the land use would not be a subdivision but rather an annexation. She felt that the beginning sections of Antrim’s Site Plan Review and Regulations are very good, but that there are many aspects
of the document that would not address the USWF. She wondered if a perimeter survey was needed for such a large property – possibly just the construction area would need to be surveyed. The controlling document would need to include all aspects. She listed some: construction, noise testing, height and setbacks, dependency on height and size of turbine. She said that the Planning Board would need to give guidance. She stressed the need for the language within the ordinance and regulations parallel each other.
Checklist
The discussion continued. The Checklist would be the next document to be developed. The present Site Plan Review Checklist has 82 items that need to be satisfied. The Checklist for a USWF would have additional requirements. It was stressed again that the document should be very clear and that the applicant should not have to look anywhere else.
Ms. Allen said that she would continue working on the information list.
Chair Robblee said that historically developers have all liked the “checklist”.
Mr. Levesque suggested that the current checklist could have the new information red-lined.
Ms. Allen said that she would be fine with that and added that the Checklist had always been the strength of the Planning Board.
The consensus of the group was that the Checklist has worked well and that they would like to see the new version with additions in red.
Mr. Levesque thanked the Ad Hoc committee for their hard work, but he was concerned about duplication in the documents.
Conditional Use
Ms. Gard stated that there was another possibility – conditional use. She explained that a conditional use would be a special permit that allowed a more extensive list of standards that may not be in any part of the Zoning Ordinance. She further explained that use and limitations are not addressed in an ordinance. The site plan review also did not determine use. Some of the examples of conditional use include height and setbacks.
There was a long discussion in which the Planning Board worked to understand the difference between conditional use and the current Zoning Ordinance.
It was determined that overlay districts, overlays, or conditional use – professional help will be needed.
There was a long discussion concerning the elements of the ordinance, the regulations or the conditional use. Some of the elements discussed are as follows:
Planning Board guidance will be needed.
The importance of wind maps and an overlay district – the current information shows that the marginal and above stand out
Should there be a provision that an applicant can challenge the wind resource
At what scale would the marginal be included – to show the map and the wind resources
The consultants should be asked
If the marginal were not included, would it be too restrictive
What was the wind resource in other areas – like Searsburg?
The Board liked the overlay district aspect.
Antrim Voters
The Planning Board and Ad Hoc Committee members discussed at length the ordinance and how it should be worded; as well as the regulations that would parallel the ordinance. The ordinance would be voted at a Special Town Meeting/Election; the regulations would be adopted by the Planning Board. The members discussed the distinction of the two – and what should be where. The importance of informing the voters was discussed.
The Board members then discussed the information for the first Public Hearing. The importance of public support and voter participation was stated. The questions and answers that the Public will ask and want answered were discussed.
Developer Agreements
The next topic that was discussed was agreements that could possibly be made between a developer of a wind facility and the owners in the affected area. Affected area (setbacks determined) was anywhere from 3-miles of a base tower to 8-miles (for visual impact). The agreement was different for each project but considered property values in the “affected” area and what the developer would do for the ‘affected’ property owner if a property were not sold for the pre-determined value (eg. – if a $100,000 valued property sold for $90,000 – the $10,000 difference would be paid by the developer – assuming that the lower price was because of the wind facility). The agreements have not been fully tested in a court of law – but it was agreed that there were concerns and that the topic should be analyzed
further.
Consultants
Members of the Planning Board and the Ad Hoc Committee expressed their concern for funding for professional consultants – in order that the technical questions could be reviewed by a professional – examples: Siting – to be done by a landscape architect; sound – to be done by a sound engineer; ordinance and regulations verbiage – to be reviewed by a professional planner.
Chair of the BOS said that the Board has not met to discuss the funding, but that the BOS would like to see a scope of work and who the prospective consultants might be – possibly a short meeting could occur.
Special Town Meeting
The Board Members expressed concern of the BOS supporting a Special Town Meeting. A BOS member said that he was concerned that the Special Town Meeting had been scheduled for September and now it appeared that it would occur in October or November. A PB member said that it was very important to have the Public Hearings when the most number of voters could attend, and that had placed some of the dates out.
Ramifications of SEC Jurisdiction
One member said that the ramifications of the SEC meeting on June 27, 2011 were that regardless of what we do now – all should understand that the SEC has the authority to do what they want and all that is done now by the Town of Antrim could be for naught.
It was agreed that the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board should be able to go in unity to the SEC with what they agree upon for the TOA.
The Planning Board and the Ad Hoc Committee discussed the June 27 SEC meeting and how they would like to proceed positively as a cohered unit at future SEC meetings.
Consultants
The important role of professional consultants was brought up again.
Ms. Pinello named 3 prospective consultants:
Jean Vissering – Landscape Architect (who has a scope of work – attached)
Benjamin Bel– Audio Engineer/ Sound Technician
Carol Ogilvie – Community Development Director – Peterborough ( Professional
Planner)
Patrick Henn of GL-Garrad-Hassan
And also:
Southwest Regional Planning Commission - as a review capacity – Tim Murphy
Ms. Pinello moved that the Planning Board request from the Board of Selectmen a reallocation of $9000.00. Mr. Lazar seconded. By a unanimous vote, it was approved.
Non-Public Meeting – 91:A request of minutes
A request had been made for the non-public minutes of the PB June 16, 2011.
The Chair had contacted legal counsel concerning the non-public meeting held on June 16, 2011 PB meeting. He had been concerned about was the legality of the meeting as well as the non-notification of the personnel discussed within the meeting. He had asked if it was incorrect that the “personnel” had not been notified. He was concerned about the legality of the non-public and after reading the letter from Town Counsel, he had come to the conclusion that it had been incorrect to go into a non-public session. He then asked if the sealed minutes should become unsealed.
Another Board member stated that Boards go into non-public “all the time”.
But – another member said – not to discuss personnel.
Chair Robblee asked should he: write a letter, unseal the minutes, or deny the request?
There was a short discussion of what should be done. Some members thought that if unsealing the minutes would rectify the problem – then unseal the minutes. Other members felt that the administration was disrespectable to the Planning Board and that should be amended.
Mr. Dubois said that if the minutes were unsealed, the issues would be known.
The Board agreed that building bridges was in the best interest of the town.
Mr. Levesque moved to unseal the non-public minutes of the June 16, 2011 meeting. Mr. Dubois seconded. Roll Call Vote: Levesque, yes; Dubois, yes; Lazar, yes; Pinello, yes; Robblee, yes. Robertson, yes. All approved that the non-public minutes should be unsealed.
At 10:50 PM, Mr. Robertson moved to adjourn. Mr. Lazar seconded. All approved to adjourn - by a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Chauncey, Secretary of the Planning Board
| 
