## ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING: September 27, 2011 ##
## MEMBERS & STAFF PRESENT ##
John Robertson (Ex-Officio)
Andrew Robblee (Chair)
Dave Dubois
Charlie Levesque
Martha Pinello
Jesse Lazar
Carol Ogilvie (Staff)
## MEMBERS & STAFF ABSENT ##
Diane Chauncey (Staff)
Scott Burnside
Stephen Schacht (Alternate)
Mike Tatro (Alternate)
## ATTENDEES ##
Mike Genest
Shelley Nelkens
Molly Moore-Lazar
Stuart Gross
Stephen MacDonald
John Soininen
Sarah Vanderwende
Janice Longgood
Loranne Block
Richard Block
Barbara Gard
Michael Pon
Elsa Volker
Annie Law
Bob Cleland
Ron Haggett
James Hankard
Mary Allen
Brian Beihl
Mike Genest
Eric Tenney
Barbara Gard
Peter Moore
Paul Whittemore
Floyd Thompson
Mary Wardman [?]
Mark Shaeffer
Brenda Schaeffer
Sam Apkarian
MANY OTHERS[?]
## PUBLIC HEARING OPENS AT 7PM ##
Chair Robblee opened the meeting at 7pm, read the notice, introduced members, and then opened the floor to input from the attendees.
Shelley Nelkens: stated that she wanted to make sure that the Planning Board had read an article about ice throw. Stated that the currently proposed setbacks are not enough, that ice throw can be as far as 1700ft.
Mr. Dubois: the board had looked at the issue very closely, and found that ice throw beyond tower height is extremely unlikely.
Stephen Macdonald: the updated version of the ordinance was not available until today, and that the online meetings calendar does not show tonights meeting.
Members of the Planning Board: stated that the ordinance certainly was available at town hall, and that they had been available online as well.
Mary Wardman [?]: people did not know when meetings the Planning Board's meetings were being held, the town certainly did a good job about advertising the Home and Harvest Festival.
John Soininen: I continue to have concerns, feel that the boards consultants have seemingly been disregarded, and that the ordinance as proposed is overly restrictive. Specific concerns included the following sections: 3.1, 7.1.8, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 8.10.2, 7.4, shadow flicker, 10.3.10, 13.2.1, 13.5. Questioned the legality of the boards agent having any power to enter leased property. Stated that conditional use permits must contain the standards for implementing the process, that every example he know of put forth an "if-then" scenario, but that the current ordinance does not do this.
James Hankard: Stated that he was amazed at the applicants comments. That with regard to blasting, there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Planning Board. That the Planning Board has an important role, and that the town is on the hook if any significant problems arise as a result of development. If the applicant is unhappy about the process they con develop somewhere else.
Paul Whittemore: Stated that it is not conservation land, that he and his mother support this project, that this is an opportunity to keep the land open, and derive income. Stated that he is a taxpayer in town, that he read that 70% of residents support this, that it will generate tax income, that its a good deal for property owners, and that it will leave the land open.
James Hankard: Objected to the 70% statistic.
Janice Longgood: This project will have a major detrimental impact. I would like to see mechanism to compensate abutting landowners for devaluation. I feel very unprotected, but I applaud the work that the Planning Board has done. I would like to see setbacks increased. It will not be a financial boon to me, it will have a negative impact. I hope the town will look after the folks who have live here for decades. I need some protection. Property value is an issue that should be on the table.
Ms Pinello: valuation is something that falls under the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen, not the Planning Board.
Chair Robblee: it is not within the role of the Planning Board to consider property value, there is no avenue of recourse through the Planning Board
Mr. Levesque: this ordinance is not about a specific project, or proposal.
Brenda Shaeffer: the NH SEC will look at the board's proposal. I feel that the ordinance needs to offer some mechanism to protect me if my property is devalued. I think my property will be devalued if there is a wind farm built near me.
Annie Law: why did you remove the sections on Financial Assurances and Tax Impact? Then expressed the concern that a wind farm would devalue property of abutters, and disappointment that there was nothing in the ordinance to compensate landowners if devaluation occurred.
Sarah Vanderwende: asked what other ordinance in town does cover the topic of property devaluation.
Mr. Levesque: State law covers this through abatement
Floyd Thompson: I was part of the the 70% statistic of people that wanted a wind farm, but now I no longer want a wind farm in Antrim.
Loranne Block: we should be given more notice blasting, and this version of the ordinance has less than the previous draft. Also, setbacks went down, and I think that they should be more. I want an independent 3rd party to do the shadow flicker studies. Property valuation is an issue that abatement does not cover. In the previously mentioned poll, the 70% in favor, was the percentage of responses, and not a percentage of the residents in favor.
Sam Apkarian: since shadow flicker is not allowed, what is my recourse if I experience shadow flicker?
Ms. Pinello: see section 13.6, you would need to address the Board of Selectmen
Brian Beihl: during NH SEC hearings and also this evening, I heard a LSWF called a public utility, is it a public utilty or not?
Mr. Levesque: a LSWF is not a public utility
Richard Block: if this ordinance overrides all others what happens to the RCD, is its purpose meaningless?
Chair Robblee: this ordinance would allow LSWF in the RCD
Richard Block: regarding 7.1.8 - blasting - originally there was notice, and now there is no notice to surrounding landowners.
Mr. Dubois: read the dot standards, you will see that your concerns are addressed
Richard Block: regarding 7.2.2 - I am concerned that 1 mile is the limit. In addition, asking the developer to do the shadow flicker study seems wrong, we shouldn't be trusting the developer, somebody independent should do the study. Regarding section 12.2, the permit jumped from five years to twenty years, and 20 years is a long time. Regarding property value - there isn't anything about this, which defeats the purpose of the ordinance. Tax abatement is not enough. We a right to our property, it is important that the value be protected.
Richard Block: submits letter to the board that was in the paper this week, then summarizes it: calculations on ice throw, an entire blade flew off a turbine. The results can be deadly. I can't set up a rifle range pointing at my neighbors land! 60 acres is a lot of land to take from a property owner. This is not ok.
Mark Shaeffer: setbacks are a concern, I have a house site laid out 200ft from the boundary. I do not know when I will be able to build. I would like a setback of 20 miles.
Bob Cleland: how can you mitigate the impact of a wind farm?
Ms Pinello: yes they are large, but siting is important. Read the references that are available online.
Sarah Vanderwende: I'm in favor of article 2. Regarding 7.2.1 - the setback is not sufficient. Regarding section 7.4 - how do you do this, and is it possible for the public to come up with additional areas? Regarding 12.0 - 20 years is too long, you should reinstate the 5 year permit. I am in favor of adding property value protection into the ordinance. We need to have more public meetings on the issue. The process should be more open. No employee of the town should be meeting privately with the developer or potential developer. Why would "developer" not allow agent to town to monitor property? There ought to be something to protect my property value, there ought to be estimated values taken into consideration.
Mary Wardman [?] - I don't like section 5.0 its bad wording. Nothing addresses my recourse if I have health problems, health is an important issue. Regarding section 13.5 - may institute, should be must. Regarding section 12.2 - five years is enough, 20 is too long.
Richard Block: In May 2009, in Eolian's initial application, 1.5 times the turbine height was referred to as the "fall down zone". Regarding section
12.5 all conditions are reviewed annually but its 20 years before application is renewed. What if the ordinance is modified?
Mr. Dubois: hazard lighting is the only thing that can be the board could request changes/alterations/upgrades to
Stephen Macdonald: with respect to section 3.1 - I understand the thinking, however I object that this can be done this way. In addition, there is nothing about public access or recreation, and I think there should be. Regarding section 14.0 appeals - the statement says there are no appeals, and thats not appeal. I don't need you to tell me I can file a lawsuit. I would vote no on this ordinance, it sets a bad precedent. This ordinance could not be enforced.
Loranne Block: will the land be taken out of current use?
Chair Robblee: we aren't looking at any specific project.
Mr. Levesque: current use status is dependent on the specific parcel, and the landowners wishes.
Shelley Nelkens: do you think that the NH SEC will take this ordinance into consideration? What if whole ordinance is voted down. How would this ordinance affect RCD, would it open up the RCD to any industrial development?
James Hankard: how can planning board allow any shadow flicker? How can it be applicant that conducts the shadow flicker study?
Ms. Pinello: if there is any doubt regarding the study, the planning board has the right to ask for third party review.
James Hankard: I don't believe the board would uphold this. I want a vote on whether people here are for or against the potential project
Mr. Lazar: this board cannot allow for a vote such as that, it could be prejudicial.
Sam Apkarian: regarding the site restoration plan, how do you restore the land?
Ms. Ogilvie - there has to be a plan with the application, the PB has the right to ask for a plan to some level agreed upon by board.
Sam Apkarian: emergency lights cannot be hidden
Ms. Pinello: there is technology to mitigate the presence of emergency lighting. "Smart lights" turn on when aircraft approaches, though I do not know that they are commercially available yet.
Sam Apkarian: regarding section 12.1.2 - the decommissioning bond begins following the construction a wind farm. I believe it should start at time of construction.
Ron Haggett - this definition included any project over 100kw, what about community wind? Regarding shadow flicker I believe that there is a serious problem with the definition.
James Hankard: how does this benefit the town?
Elsa Volker: there is new technology where wind mills don't make noise, I hope we are looking into it. I think if this goes through that it will destroy the town. The town will not benefit.
Stuart Gross: there is s precedent for industrial energy in this zone, more than 100 years of precedent. Gregg lake is an example of an industrial creation, Franklin Pierce Reservoir as well.
Peter Moore: I came to support the proposed ordinance. I would like to thank the Planning Board and the ac hoc committee for all the work that has gone into the ordinance. The ordinance will never be perfect to everyone, this ordinance is good. It is important that Antrim adopt an ordinance. I understand people in North Branch are nervous. This is a good ordinance, there is give and take. This is our town, and not an applicants town, it is important to have something in place. Its important to support this.
Mary Allen: I am a member of the ad hoc committee. I petitioned to the NH SEC for local control, in that petition I obtained 143 signors. There is great interest in what we come forward with here. I would like to address this that it is urgent that we move this forward now. This is not perfect but no ordinance is. It is time to take the next step.
Floyd Thompson: you've done a good job with the meetings. This is a business proposition. The Planning Board is becoming too comfortable with the applicant, who is just an investor. The applicant should have to buy people out. The burden shouldn't be on the town. The problem is property valuation, the burden should be on the applicant to ensure property value.
Molly Moore Lazar - the Planning Board has listened to many different issues and has repeatedly been called too lenient or too restrictive. I want this ordinance to pass. I would like the NH SEC to see this ordinance.
It is important that people understand the role of the selectmen, and that the Planning Board isn't designed to handle some of the issues people are concerned with.
Janice Longgood: thank you for the hard work. Having an ordinance is important. Property valuation is important and should be considered.
Brian Beihl: when will selectmen make a decision?
Ms. Pinello: we don't know the answer to that
Brian Beihl: the NH SEC wants to see an ordinance by December, and quoted from the NH SEC deliberation in June. If we want to have a say, we need to get this ordinance passed.
## PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ##
Chair Robblee closed the Public Hearing at 9:30[?]
Mr. Levesque: moved to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance, and expressed his opinion that while the ordinance could be discussed more in the future that the proposed ordinance at hand was sufficient.
Mr. Dubois: seconded the motion, and spoke to the strengths of the ordinance.
Mr. Lazar: stated that he felt that the ordinance was complete, and would function effectively, that he did not see any issues that needed to be addressed, and that if something did come up the Board always has the power to amend this ordinance just like amendments to ordinances are made every year.
Ms. Pinello: Ellen from Garrad Hassan expressed to me that her view is that this ordinance is very good, and that the acoustics are handled well. Ellen used the term perscriptive, meaning that it tells the applicant what they need to do, that it sets up regulation in a way that lets the community decide. Ellen did not have concerns about our handling of shadow flicker, thought our use of conditional use was good.
Ms. Pinello: went on to say I am in favor of approving this and then continuing work for town meeting in March. We have met our deadlines and we have to continue in that fashion. We told the state agency we would do something, and now we need to do it.
Chair Robblee: I agree with Martha and Charlie in some respects, and at the same time I think the ordinance needs more work. With a couple more work sessions we would have something. I think we are close and have done a great job. I think it would be confusing to adopt this ordinance now and then make changes in March. I don't see where the urgency is. With that said, there is no major change that I see that would needs to take place.
Ms. Pinello: do we want to take a look at the propsed changes for March?
Mr. Levesque: no, we need to move forward now.
Mr. Robertson: we would be better off to wait.
Mr. Lazar: what is one issue that you feel needs to be fixed?
Mr. Dubois: The potential corrections are not significant to hold it up. We can address any issues that may arise in March. We should get on the books and move forward.
Ms. Ogilvie: I feel many of the concerns are interpretation issues (that the public has with a land use ordinance). If this goes to the NH SEC, they would at least have something to guide them. The NH SEC would not be hung up on the issues brought up, because they familiar with land use law.
Ms. Pinello: it is important to do what you say you, and we told the NH SEC that we would create this ordinance
VOTE ON THE MOTION
Mr. Levesque: yes
Mr. Lazar: yes
Mr. Dubois: yes
Chair Robblee: no
Mr. Robertson: no
Ms. Pinello: yes
Mr. Lazar: motion to adopt article 2 as drafted
Mr. Levesque: second
Mr. Lazar: this article is necessary to ensure that the residents of Antrim have a large scale wind ordinance implemented in a way that they want, if the people of Antrim do not want this kind of development in the RCD it is their decision to make, not ours.
Mr. Robertson: it is unnecessary
Chair Robblee: I was in favor of up or down vote last year. This is confusing and people will think that they are protecting conservation land. I think it is misleading almost, to have the ordinance then not allow the use in the RCD.
Mr. Levesque: people in antrim are smarter than that.
Ms. Pinello: the school ballot is often done this way, we have high voter turnout, an educated participating voter group that is familiar with voting issues.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
Mr. Levesque: yes
Mr. Lazar: yes
Mr. Dubois: yes
Chair Robblee: no
Mr. Robertson: no
Ms. Pinello: yes
Mr. Levesque: motion for chair to deliver to the town clerk the the two ballot questions tomorrow (Wednesday September 28, 2011)
Mr. Lazar: second
VOTE ON THE MOTION
Mr. Levesque: yes
Mr. Lazar: yes
Mr. Dubois: yes
Chair Robblee: yes
Mr. Robertson: yes
Ms. Pinello: yes
Mr. Levesque: motioned for the chair is to request that the selectmen hold a special town meeting (for a ballot vote), on November 8,2011 for the two articles that we adopted this evening
Ms. Pinello: second
VOTE ON THE MOTION
Mr. Levesque: yes
Mr. Lazar: yes
Mr. Dubois: yes
Chair Robblee: no
Mr. Robertson: no
Ms. Pinello: yes
Mr. Levesque: motioned to adjourn
Mr. Robertson: seconded
## MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05PM ##
MINUTES BY JESSE LAZAR
| 
