ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
September 6, 2012
Annual Active Excavation Sites
1:00PM Part 1 Annual Excavation Review – Field Trip
Town bus trip to the 5 active Excavation Pits – to be attended by some Planning Board Members, Carol Ogilvie (Consultant Planner), Mary Pinkham Langer(DRA), and Diane Chauncey (Secretary to the Planning Board).
Members & Staff Present: Diane Chauncey (Secretary) Carol Ogilvie (Consultant Planner)
Mary Pinkham-Langer (Gravel Tax Appraiser) Martha Pinello (Member)
Janet McEwen (Alternate) Sarah VanderWende (Member) Steve MacDonald (Member)
Rick Seavey (Bus Driver)
Zeke & Mack’s
Lisa Stewart, owner, present
Ms. Langer noted that there were no changes to the pit since her last annual visit. There were no areas of concern. There was a short discussion on the town permitting process and how it should coordinate with DES permitting. There was another short discussion concerning abandoned pits. Ms. Langer stated that with the downturn of the economy, “abandonment” was a grayer area. She cited a Supreme Court decision Town of Madbury v. Pike Industries – in which the town said that the pit had been abandoned; Pike Industries said it had not, the economy was poor. Pike Industries won.
Landsite/Chauncey
Scott Burnside, pit operator, present
Ms. Langer noted that there had been multiple changes since her last visit. A greater area had been reclaimed and the retention pit had been built. She had no areas of concern. Planning Board members asked if monitoring wells were in place. Mr. Burnside stated that they were not required. There were questions concerning the stockpiled material. Mr. Burnside explained how the material that was currently being ground would be reused in another application. Some members wanted to know if it was typical to have stockpiles of material that were not generated from the pit. Mr. Burnside assured the members that stockpiles were common. Mr. Burnside stated that he was not currently excavating any new material.
SRJones
Steve Jones, owner, and his two sisters, present
Mr. Jones gave a tour of his current excavation. He stated that he was currently correcting a steep face ( an area of concern from past annual reviews) by depositing material at the bottom of the face and backfilling. He noted stockpiles of material that was not pit generated. Ms. Langer noted that a past “area of concern” had been corrected. (Silt fencing next to a running brook had deteriorated. Mr. Jones had built a berm along the brook to redirect the run-off water.) A member asked Mr. Jones to predict the life of the pit. He stated that it would be impossible to determine because of the poor economy. There were no areas of concern.
Gap Mountain
Mr. Fairbanks, standing in for Mr. Jack Belletete, owner
The group toured the pit, noting that the pit was quite grown up. Ms. Langer had stated in other annual reviews that the pit has been naturally reclaimed. There were areas of erosion that had been corrected with rip/rap, berms, and silt fencing. There were no areas of concern.
Steele Pond – TOA
The review group toured the Town of Antrim’s leased pit. Last year, Ms. Langer was concerned with the south easterly boundary of the pit. The Town Crew had been dumping waste material over an edge which was above a brook. Ms. Langer had stated that the practice could be detrimental to the brook. On this visit, she was pleased to note that the practice had ceased. She encouraged the Road Crew to continue in this manner. There were no areas of concern.
7:00PM Part 2 Annual Excavation Review
Members & Staff Present: Diane Chauncey (Secretary) David Dubois (Chair)
Jesse Lazar (Vice-Chair) Charles Levesque (Member) Steve MacDonald (Member)
Janet McEwen (Alternate) Carol Ogilvie (Consultant Planner) Martha Pinello (Member)
Sarah VanderWende (Member)
Members & Staff Absent: Mike Genest (Ex-officio)
Public Attendees: Steve Jones and Susan Stalbird
Review of the five Excavation Pits that had been visited earlier in the day
A slide show of the earlier visitations was shown to the Board.
Ms. Ogilvie will review existing regulations and make recommendations for the Board’s Review.
Some of the issues that were discussed:
- Expiration date – do grandfathered pits need a permit
- Inconsistencies of state and town permit and review process
- What happens after reclamation?
- Definition of incidental
- Bonds – which pits had bonds
Business Meeting:
Approve minutes of August 16, 2012 Ms. Pinello moved to accept the minutes. Ms. VanderWende seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as amended.
Approve minutes of August 30, 2012 Ms. Pinello moved to accept the minutes. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as amended.
SEC (State Evaluation Committee) Update:
Mr. Levesque stated that he had attended the SEC meeting (in Concord) of September 6, 2012. He said that the morning hearing was a series of oral arguments and answering questions. The arguments were presented by Atty Waugh (for the Antrim Planning Board), Lisa Linowes (for Industrial Wind Action Group), Atty Susan Geiger (for Antrim Wind Energy, LLC [AWE]) and Atty Peter Roth (Counsel for the Public). Mr. Levesque said that the SEC questions were asked mostly by Atty Iacopino (Counsel for the SEC) and SEC Chair Amy Ignatius. Mr. Levesque stated that Atty Waugh did a very good job emphasizing the brief for the Antrim Planning Board and when Atty Waugh was questioned he was able to cite numerous cases that were applicable to the Planning Board arguments. Mr. Levesque stated that when the meeting broke for lunch, the
outcome was unclear. Atty Waugh left as he would be unable to speak again. The SEC went into a closed session with their Counsel. After an hour break, the SEC returned to deliberate.
Mr. Levesque stated that the deliberation was divided into 3 parts:
- The PSNH substation – because it was part of many previous discussions and it was an associated facility
- There was some preemption of local zoning
- The local Planning Board likely has some authority to oversee a subdivision project.
Mr. Levesque said that the SEC did feel that the Planning Board would have some authority but that it was not cut and dry. The SEC stated that the Planning Board should further clarify their authority. He said that “the ball was in their court” to lay out a list, point by point, of the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision & Site Plan Regulations.
Before the final motion, Mr. Kenworthy came to sit by Mr. Levesque and asked if there were some way that the Planning Board and AWE could agree on what that (the local authority) should look like.
The Board discussed what to do next.
Ms. Pinello (who had also attended the SEC meeting) stated that Atty Waugh had presented his arguments eloquently. She liked the way he emphasized the permanency of a subdivision – how flying over a landscape – a subdivision stood out (therefore noting the perpetuity of a subdivision approval).
Mr. Levesque said the question is: who has what authority (of the subdivision) and that it is unchartered territory. He said that the SEC was asking the Planning Board’s opinion. He also said that the Planning Board could present their opinion and that the SEC could ignore the Board’s opinion.
Chair Dubois said that caution was necessary – the Board should be careful not to do what the Board of Selectmen (BOS) had done (referring to the BOS in the their agreement with AWE which had included changes to the Zoning Ordinance (in the Contract) that were not in their authority); and the Planning board should also stay within their authority.
There was a short discussion at the SEC hearings and legal opinions were given that the Board of Selectmen contract with AWE was not valid and that the Board of Selectmen did not have the authority to deal with planning and zoning issues.
Mr. Levesque stated that the deadline for the adjudicatory hearing had been moved to October 29. Mr. Levesque continued that the Planning Board needed to state their authority. He said that the SEC mentioned that the subdivision authority should be under the purview of the Planning Board but there may be a limit which may include setbacks, frontage, etc.
Mr. Lazar stated that the Board should start with the distinction of major and minor subdivision.
Mr. Levesque asked: should the access to the substation be considered a road or a driveway.
Ms. Pinello stated that going forward (after the authority has been decided); the process should be like getting state approvals.
Mr. Levesque stated that he would be willing to put together a list for the 9/20/2012 meeting. He said that AWE would like to have a dialogue with the Planning Board.
Chair Dubois again expressed caution in this situation and said that it was not an application situation. He stated that the intervenor should not be burdened with the issue – where the line is drawn is not clear.
Mr. Levesque said that the SEC did not state what had brought them to their conclusion. He stated that he felt that the SEC wanted to avoid Court; and that they were making up the standards as they went along.
Ms. Pinello stated that this was the first community to have the intellectual capital and a much nuanced argument. She said that [Antrim] was different from what they had seen before – Antrim being a rural community with a planning infrastructure.
Mr. Lazar said that the SEC still has the power to approve energy facilities and to have a higher authority.
A question concerning the Planning Board cooperating with AWE was asked.
Chair Dubois said that the Board should be cautious about negotiating.
Ms. Vanderwende stated: “We should beware of "negotiation" and continue to treat this as an abstract of law, because it sets a precedent. Without an application, we can only reveiw our regulations in whole and objectively come up with what we would have for Any application and avoid reviewing them with AWE in mind.”
The Board discussed the creation of a list that the Board felt was primary without relinquishing any Planning Board authority.
Mr. Levesque said that the Board should clearly define where the line is drawn between subdivision and site plan. But he said that the list could be created, and the SEC could ignore it.
Chair Dubois stated that land use was under the authority of the SEC but the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations should be observed.
Ms. Pinello repeated her concern for the permanence of approvals made by the Planning Board.
There was a short discussion on the creation of the “authority” list.
Mr. Levesque stated that he would develop a draft for the 9/20 meeting. He would discuss the draft with Chair Dubois and the document would be sent to the Board prior to the 9/20 meeting.
Other business:
Planning Board draft agendas on website?
Board approved the draft agenda to be posted to the antrimnh.org website on the Monday or Tuesday on the week of the regularly scheduled meeting.
At 9:50PM, Mr. MacDonald moved to adjourn. It was seconded by Ms. VanderWende. All approved the motion to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Chauncey, Secretary of the Planning Board
| 
