ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
January 4, 2012
Zoning Ordinance Ballot Amendments
Public Hearing
Members & Staff Present: Diane Chauncey (Secretary) Scott Burnside (Member) David Dubois (Member) Jesse Lazar (Vice-Chair) Charles Levesque (Member) Martha Pinello (Member) Andrew Robblee (Chair) John Robertson (Ex-Officio)
Carol Ogilvie (Consultant Planner)
Members & Staff Absent:
Mike Tatro (Alternate) Stephen Schacht (Alternate)
Public Attendees:
Ben Pratt Ron Haggett Wes Enman Mike Genest
Sarah Vanderwende Gordon Webber Steve Campbell Shelley Nelkens
Michael Pon Kathleen Sullivan Margie Warner Richard Block
7:00 PM – Public Hearing:
Chair Robblee opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 PM.
Some Public Attendees’ comments:
R. Block - Ballot Question # 4 – He stated that the definition of of the RCD is violated by the proposed amendment. He felt that there should be further discussion on allowing a cell tower in the district by Special Exception; whether or not residents wanted an LWEF located in the RCD should be on the ballot; no drastic changes had been made in the LWEF ordinance; blasting notification should occur; the setbacks should be greater because ice throw is documented; the removal of the property line leaves nothing to fall back on; he said that conditional use eliminates the ZBA as an appellate body and that he was concerned about the legal ramifications; he felt that the SEC would be responsive to the vote of the Antrim people.
S. Nelkens – Questioned the height of the tower; she would like to see stronger wording in 8.6 – particularly concerning bats; there should be no blasting while the eagles are nesting.
K. Sullivan – She felt that the RCD should be left the way it is and that Willard Pond is a very special and beautiful place; she stated that in 8.7 and 8.9, she was not confident in the owner/operator following the standards and used Vermont Yankee as an example.
S. Mac Donald – He questioned Ordinance #s 13.0, 13.2, 8.3, 7.4 because of the way in which they were written. He felt that they were set up to fail because of their arbitrary wording; 10.1.13 should be clarified; the permit to operate should be transferrable.
Gordon Webber – He stated that the height should remain at 500’; that “five times the turbine height” should be dropped to three; in 7.4.1, 8.9, and shadow flicker - the wording is subjective; the Antrim voters voted down Article 2 meaning that the voters do not want to disallow turbines in the RCD.
R. Haggett – He felt that 13.2.1, the permanent easement waiver was too broad.
J. Longgood – She encouraged the Board to not be so subjective and encouraged the Board not to decrease the setbacks; she stated that she would be ringed by turbines and that the people who currently live in the area should be considered; she wanted to be notified when blasting was to occur; and that she felt the ordinance was not restrictive enough.
A. Law – She stated that there was no protection for current owners’ property values; that there was nothing for the people who presently live in North Branch and she would like to see protection written in.
W. Enman – He had questions concerning the information that the Board received from the hired consultants; questioned the setbacks and their actual locations; he had questions concerning shadow flicker – 30 hours a year? ; acoustics should be 55 by day and 45 at night; he stated that he felt that the ordinance was about Antrim Wind Energy; and, he questioned the transferability of the permit to operate.
M. Genest – He stated that 500’ was a reasonable height restriction; in 7.2.2.1, the acoustics could be interpreted that the sound could not be greater that 30 dba at the property line.
S. Vanderwende – she commended the Board for the work that they had done so far; she saw the ordinance as an opportunity to cover community wind; and that a developer would understand Antrim’s position.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8PM.
The Board members discussed the Public Attendees comments:
Some attendees thought the ordinance was too restrictive
Some attendees thought the ordinance was not restrictive enough.
The ordinance can not satisfy everyone.
The questions that the residents asked should have been answered.
A definition of conditional use is necessary.
Changes made:
Height: from 500’ to 450’
7.2: Remove - property lines….. and other places/features
7.2.2.2: Take property line occupied structures to a LWEF and/or occupied structures.
7.3.2: Add Ground to Water Quality
7.4.2: Reword and combine 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 – to become 7.4
8.6: Add sentence at end: The Owner/Operator shall implement the Wildlife Protection Plan.
13.2: Change necessary or to minimize
Mr. Levesque moved to adopt the edited version of the LWEF ordinance for the next Public Hearing. Vice-Chair Lazar seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Ms. Pinello, yes; Mr. Lazar, yes; Chair Robblee, yes; Mr. Levesque, yes; Mr. Robertson, yes; Mr. Dubois, yes. – Mr. Burnside did not vote and did not agree with the unanimous vote on the December 15, 2011 meeting on the wind ordinance, stating he abstained because the chairman never asked for any other votes. Others on the Board disagreed that Mr. Burnside did not vote. Board Members stated that Mr. Burnside could not say at a later date that he had not said anything – which would have changed the history of the meeting.
At 10:30 PM, Mr. Levesque moved to adjourn. Vice-Chair Lazar seconded. All approved to adjourn - by a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Chauncey, Secretary of the Planning Board
| 
