ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2017
Regular Meeting
Members Present:
Chris Condon (Chair), Bob Holmes, Lynne Rosansky, Steve MacDonald, Janet McEwen, and Bob Edwards (Ex-Officio).
Members Absent: Jeanne Cahoon (Vice-Chair)
Staff Present: Carol Ogilvie (Consultant Planner).
Public Attendees: None.
CTO: Chair Condon called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
I. Minutes
Motion: Ms. McEwen made a motion to approve the minutes of May 4, 2017. Ms. Rosansky seconded the motion.
Discussion. None
Vote: By a voice vote, all agreed, except for Ms. McEwen, who abstained because she was not at that meeting.
Motion: Ms. Rosansky made a motion to approve the minutes of May 18, 2017. Ms. McEwen seconded the motion.
Discussion. None
Vote: By a voice vote, all agreed.
II. Holmes & Rosansky Revised Vision Statement Review
Chair Condon noted that since three members are absent this evening, and because he does not have access to the
office with the copy machine, he would suggest tabling this discussion until the next meeting.
III. Master Plan Land Use Sections Review
Regarding the Current Land Use section, Chair Condon stated that in his opinion the section is entirely too wordy.
Mr. Holmes remarked that he understood the intent of the Board’s effort here was to reduce the document to the
barest essential, to which Chair Condon agreed. Ms. McEwen suggested combining both the Current and the
Future Land Use sections into one section.
Ms. Rosansky wondered why a history of development patterns was included. Mr. Holmes noted that such information
could be helpful, especially if they had data on new businesses in town. But the data in this Plan is not seriously outdated.
Chair Condon noted that it is just information without context.
Ms. Rosansky and Ms. McEwen both agreed that it would be interesting to know what has happened in town, including which businesses are no longer operating.
Chair Condon read from the state statute that governs the land use section of master plans (RSA 674:2):
“A land use section on which all the following sections shall be based. This section shall translate the vision
statements into physical terms. Based on a study of population, economic activity, and natural, historic,
and cultural resources, it shall show existing conditions and the proposed location, extent, and intensity of future land use.”
[Mr. MacDonald in at 7:15 PM]
The Board then engaged in lengthy discussion regarding the approach they should take in reviewing not only
the land use sections, but the other sections of the master plan. It was agreed that updated data was needed
in order to move forward; for example, the demographic data in the Population and Housing section is very outdated. Ms. Ogilvie offered to collect current demographic data for the Board.
Mr. Holmes then raised the question of how to get current data on businesses. He noted that in particular they
should know more about the status of home businesses in town, since that has been a priority for the Board –
to encourage and facilitate home business. Ms. Ogilvie stated that this information is not so easy to collect,
in part because the Census does not collect that in a way that is meaningful for the master plan process.
[Mr. Edwards in at 7:37 P.M.]
II. Holmes & Rosansky Revised Vision Statement Review
With Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Edwards now present, and with the ability to access the copy machine,
Chair Condon made copies of the revised Vision Statement for the Board to review. Following a brief discussion,
the Board agreed to make the following one-word change, on a motion by Mr. Holmes/seconded by Ms. Rosansky:
“Our shared priorities include protecting maintaining our small-town feel…”
Chair Condon called for discussion. Mr. MacDonald noted that this is the basis for on-going discussion.
Not everything is defined, nor should it be because things change. This vision works in that way.
Chair Condon admitted to his need to wordsmith, but overall he does like the statement. Nevertheless, he would
like to propose a friendly amendment. Mr. Holmes would like to have this voted on now; in his opinion it is
sufficient, it has been worked and re-worked and it should be done. Chair Condon replied that he is
concerned that the Vision Statement represents the entire Master Plan, and is the face of the town, therefore it should be well presented and properly written.
Mr. Edwards stated that in his opinion the Statement is too long; furthermore, he does not agree that the
downtown should be the main commercial area in town. In sum, he does not support the vision statement.
Ms. McEwen feels that the Statement is not 100% ready for adoption. Mr. Holmes replied that the three
sections they are reviewing tonight have already been approved by the Board; all that has changed is that
the three have been combined into one section. At this point Chair Condon called for a vote on the motion that is on the floor – to approve as it with the one wording change:
Janet McEwen – No; Lynn Rosansky – Yes; Chair Condon – No; Steve MacDonald – Yes; Bob Edwards – No; Bob Holmes – Yes.
With three votes in favor and three against, the motion does not pass. Ms. Rosansky then made a motion
to have Chair Condon make the edits he suggested and bring to the next meeting. There was no second to this motion.
Chair Condon noted that they are at an impasse and will need to take this up again at the next meeting.
This is to some extent typical of what happens when “drafting by committee” occurs. He noted that another
alternative would be to accept the Statement as it is, and give it over to Ms. Ogilvie for final editing, without
changing the substance of the Statement. Mr. Holmes notes that the same issues would arise.
Ms. McEwen stated that they could provisionally approve the Statement but allow the option to revisit
it after doing other work on the master plan. Mr. Holmes responded that you can’t change the vision.
Ms. Ogilvie replied that, in the event that through the data collection process, new information came
to light that altered the public’s opinions about certain things, then the vision statement might in fact change.
Ms. McEwen noted that this is a reminder that public input is essential.
The input from 2020 was not huge, so they need to be pursuing other options, such as an on-line survey.
Mr. MacDonald suggested that the vision is a living document that is always open to change;
accept it as a base level, not cast in stone because it can be revised based on new data.
It should be looked at against on-going discussion with the community and updated information.
Ms. McEwen stated that she would second that.
Mr. Edwards stated that that would be fine, if everyone agreed with the Statement.
In his opinion, the current Vision Statement is flawed. Ms. Rosansky said that it could be tweaked to some extent.
But it should not be specific. Mr. Edwards and Ms. Rosansky have differing opinions on whether the Vision Statement is too restrictive or not.
Chair Condon asks if the Board is ready to vote on Mr. MacDonald’s suggestion, if he is willing to cast it as a motion.
Mr. MacDonald makes a motion/seconded by Ms. McEwen to accept the Vision Statement as is,
with the understanding that it is open to change and revision, based on new data and resulting changes in public opinion.
Roll Call Vote: Janet McEwen – Yes; Lynn Rosansky – Yes; Chair Condon – Yes;
Steve MacDonald – Yes; Bob Edwards – No; Bob Holmes – Yes. The vote carries.
IV. Other Business
Ms. McEwen asked Mr. Edwards how the planning board can be part of the process with
projects that the Selectmen approve with no input from planning board (for example the Highland Avenue drainage).
Mr. Edwards stated that the Selectmen do hold public hearings and invite the public, and do not engage
the Planning Board when the issue is outside of the Board’s purview.
Other examples were cited wherein the Planning Board may or may/should or should not have had a
role in the process, such as the Shea Field lighting or the wind farm. No decisions were made,
but Ms. McEwen requested that the Selectmen think about involving the Planning Board more often.
Adjournment:
Motion: Mr. MacDonald made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McEwen seconded the motion.
Discussion. None
Vote: By a voice vote, all agreed.
Meeting adjourned: 8:20 PM
Respectfully Submitted By,
Carol Ogilvie
| 
