ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
July 5, 2012
Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations – Review & Edit
Members & Staff Present: Diane Chauncey (Secretary) David Dubois (Chair)
Mike Genest (Ex-officio) Jesse Lazar (Vice-Chair) Steve MacDonald (Member) Sarah VanderWende (Member)
Members & Staff Absent:
Janet McEwen (Alternate Martha Pinello (Member) Charles Levesque (Member)
Public Attendees: None
7:00PM Public Meeting:
Chair Dubois opened the meeting at 7:02PM. The meeting began with the approval of minutes.
June 14, 2012 Minutes
Motion: To accept the minutes. Ms. VanderWende made the motion; Mr. Lazar seconded.
The minutes were approved as amended.
June 21, 2012 Minutes
Motion: To table the June 21 minutes until the Jul 19 meeting. Mr. Lazar made the motion; Ms. VanderWende seconded. It was unanimous to table the minutes.
SEC update
Mr. MacDonald stated that he had re-read the motion and that he saw nothing in the motion that stated that Ms. Pinello and Mr. Levesque had been given the authority to determine the entire Board’s position. (During SEC update of the June 21 meeting, Mr. MacDonald had questioned why one Board member had assented for the entire Board. Chair Dubois had stated that a motion had been made and approved at the May 17 meeting that had given 2 Board members the authority. Mr. MacDonald stated that he did not feel that he had handed over complete authority to the Planning Board representatives, but also admitted that he should re-read the motion.)
Mr. Lazar stated that the Planning Board representatives had basically been given power of attorney, which is very clear in the motion to appoint Mr. Levesque and Ms. Pinello.
Mr. MacDonald stated that he did not see it that way.
A long discussion ensued. Mr. MacDonald said that the Board should have voted (Ms. Pinello had assented to a motion filed by Atty Roth to hire consultants). He said that the Board should have made a decision, not one or two people. The majority of the Planning Board disagreed with Mr. MacDonald’s interpretation of the motion.
Mr. MacDonald read from the motion of May 17, 2012.
Mr. Lazar stated that the subcommittee is the only way that the Planning Board can participate.
Ms. Vanderwende stated that they had been granted the authority and that anyone with intervenor status has the right to assent.
Mr. MacDonald said “only for matters that have already been pre-determined” - (Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan, and Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations)
M. VanderWende said that Mr. MacDonald had misunderstood the motion.
Mr. MacDonald stated that he wanted to go on record that his interpretation of the motion was that the Board had not given complete authority to 2 Board members.
Mr. Genest asked if there would have been enough time to come back to the Board for a vote.
Chair Dubois stated that Atty Roth had asked on Friday for intervenors to assent to a motion that he would be filing and that he need responses by Monday afternoon. Due to time constraints and not all receiving the email request, Ms. Pinello assented for the Planning Board.
Mr. Genest addressed the letter written by Atty Rattigan for seven residents. He read from a portion of a Town Counsel letter stating “Now that they [referring to 3 Planning board Members] have been formally identified as opponents to the project seeking to have the Agreements negotiated by the Selectmen declared invalid, the Selectmen believe they are disqualified to act on matters relating to AWE that may come before the Planning board under RSA 673:14 (I) and expect that they will recuse themselves from consideration of any such matters ”.
Chair Dubois stated that the line says that they “have been formally identified as opponents”. He questioned does it say that they were opponents. He said that he found it to be unbelievable that it should be stated that they were opponents, when there was no documentation to support the statement.
Mr. Genest stated that the Board was representing just a portion of the town and not the majority of the town.
Mr. Lazar stated that he hears the same concern of the Board of Selectmen.
Chair Dubois said there was another matter to be discussed. He had heard from the subcommittee that Amy Ignatius, SEC Chair, will potentially request legal briefs from all the intervenors concerning the SEC’ s authority to subdivide land in the town of Antrim.
Chair Dubois interpreted the potential request as: the SEC does not know the answer. He felt that no intervenors should have to hire a lawyer to write a legal brief to defend their position. The subdivision should be in compliance with the Antrim Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations. He stated that the Town of Antrim should not be put in that position.
Chair Dubois suggested that a letter should be written to Atty Iacopino stating that it would be unreasonable to expect the Town of Antrim to defend their Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulation.
Mr. Genest asked if the request was official.
Chair Dubois stated that Amy Ignatius (Chair of the SEC) was going to officially request legal briefs from the intervenors concerning the subdivision of land in the Town of Antrim.
There was a short discussion concerning who had authority in the Antrim Wind Energy, LLC application. The question is - does the Planning Board have the authority or does the SEC have the authority to subdivide land in the Town of Antrim.
Chair Dubois stated that the Planning Board would be defending the Antrim Zoning Ordinance, and that was the fundamental reason for intervening.
Mr. MacDonald questioned if the Board has a position.
Chair Dubois stated that the Board is defending the Antrim Zoning Ordinance, not on whether or not the wind farm should be approved.
Mr. Genest asked if the request was just hearsay.
Chair Dubois stated that he understood that legal briefs would be requested. He did not want an attorney bill – just to defend the Antrim Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision & Site Plan Review Regulations.
Consensus decision: Chair Dubois would email Atty Iacopino with his questions and that information would be forwarded to the Board.
Public Hearing Application Review Process -further discussion of procedure, amending the bylaws, and amending the “cheat sheet”
At the June 21, 2012 meeting, the procedure for the Public Meeting/Public Hearing was questioned. Chair Dubois said that he did not agree with the “cheat sheet” (procedure for the Public Meeting/Public Hearing) and he had attempted to edit as the meeting was occurring, and he felt that the procedure needed to be altered.
Some of the topics discussed:
- The word “filing” and “submit” are used interchangeably and the 30 day time frame to accept or not to accept the application
- Is ”submit” defined as when the Planning Board actually receives the application in a public hearing
- Who determines the completeness of the application
- Noticing must occur 10 days before the date of the meeting
- The procedure has been done incorrectly in past Planning Board meetings
- RSA 676:4.1 d. 1. - Clarifies the noticing of the meeting
After a long discussion, Chair Dubois stated the process that should be followed:
Notice to be read by the Secretary
The checklist should be reviewed by the Board
The Board determines whether to accept or not accept the application
If the application is accepted, then the Public Hearing would be opened
The applicant will present their proposal
Motion: to amend the procedure and by-laws (13.2 c. and 14.1 b) to reflect the new procedure
Motion made by Mr. Lazar: seconded by Ms. VanderWende: Unanimous to amend the procedure and by-laws
Subdivision & Site Plan Regulations – Review & Edit
Major topic – What is a minor site plan review?
There was a long discussion in which the Board reviewed regulations from other NH towns (some of the towns: Londonderry, Bristol, Peterborough, Stoddard, Hudson) and the Office of Energy and Planning Q & A describing minor site plan criteria.
After the long discussion, Vice-Chair Lazar stated that a minor site plan shall include applications which meet the following criteria:
- The purpose of the plan is for a change of use or expansion of use.
- There is no conflict with current zoning.
- The site plan will have a minimum traffic impact on the surrounding road network, and there is no alteration of access to public streets.
- The increase in gross floor area is less than 30% of the existing gross floor area up to 700sf, except in home based businesses which are allowed 700sf. *** placeholder ***
- The increase in parking is less than or equal to 2 additional parking spaces.
- There are no unusual or special conditions which require supplemental information.
The Planning Board shall have the responsibility for making the final decision as to the application of these regulations to any proposed development, change or expansion of use.
Further topics to be discussed at another meeting:
- Description of requirements for home based business and how does it co-exist with home occupation
- Separate submission requirements for home occupation – take out of regs for minor and home based business
Motion to adjourn at 9:10PM: Mr. MacDonald; seconded by Mr. Genest. Unanimous approval to adjourn
Respectfully submitted, Diane Chauncey, Secretary of the Planning Board
| 
