ANTRIM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 8, 2009 Meeting
Members & Staff Present: Diane Chauncey (Staff) Doug Crafts (Member)
Ron Haggett (Member) John Giffin (Member) John Kendall (Chair)
Peter Moore (Planner) Frank Scales (Member)
Members & Staff Absent: Don Winchester (Alternate)
Public Attendees:
Shelly Nelkens(Resident) Peter Burwen(Abutter/Applicant)
Dave Kirkpatrick(Resident) Maureen Watts (Abutter/Applicant)
Doug Wilkins (Atty - AT&T) Bonnie Achterhof (Resident)
Josh Bond (Ledger/Transcript) Paul Achterhof (Resident)
Ben Pratt (Resident) Loranne Carey-Block (Resident)
Constance Vandervort(Abutter/Applicant) Margaret Warner(Resident)
Stephen Noble (Resident)
7:00 Review Session
Review Minutes of August 18, 2009
7:15 Public Meeting:
Motion to Deny/Grant Rehearing application of Mr. Peter Burwen, et al, for previous granting of Special Exception and Area Variances by ZBA to New Cingular (AT&T), dated July 14, 2009, for proposed telecommunications facility to be located at 22 High Street, Antrim, NH. Map 244, Lot 6 - Planning Department Case # 2009-01ZBA
Chair Kendall opened the meeting and introduced the members of the Board.
Chair Kendall stated that there had been a formal request to remove Mr. Haggett as a voting member of the ZBA for the Rehearing decision. Chair Kendall said that he had studied the reasons for the request and found no reasons to remove Mr. Haggett. Chair Kendall did ask for a vote from the members. The other two members agreed that Mr. Haggett should not be removed as a voting member.
Mr. Haggett said that there was not a full Board and there was an option on the part of the applicant to ask for a decision from a full board on whether or not to continue the meeting.
The coalition (the applicants who had submitted the rehearing application - Peter Burwen, Maureen Watts, Connie Vandervort, and Tony Koban) left the Little Town Hall to discuss their options)
A long discussion ensued. The Board, the AT&T applicants, the Rehearing applicants, the Public Attendees all became involved in the discussion of what should happen (four Board members, not five). The Applicants were concerned that if the Board voted and it was a tie - what would happen - the request would be denied - the applicants did not want that to occur - Atty Wilkins stated that the decision must occur in 30 days (RSA 677:3-II).
The discussion continued. The concerns involved the following:
" Atty Wilkins said that he decision must occur in 30 days. (RSA 67;3 - II)
" It must be done in the context of a Public Meeting.
" There are multiple interpretations of the law.
" In a future scheduled meeting - there are no guarantees that there will be five members.
" A split decision (2 votes to 2 votes) is a denial.
" Should the present meeting continue to a 'date certain'?
" Mr. Haggett stated that he wanted the Board to be open and transparent.
" Mr. Burwen asked if a 'deadlock' meant a denial.
Ms. Maureen Watts wanted a "pre-vote" to determine what the Board is thinking. The Board did not vote.
7:45pm - There was a long discussion concerning what should occur. After much discussion, the Board proposed that the meeting be continued with the consent of the applicant (the Rehearing abutters).
Ms. Chauncey called Mr. Crafts at his home to determine another date that he could be present. He said that he would be able to come immediately to the ongoing meeting.
8:10pm Mr. Crafts arrived. The Board began discussion of the five criteria and two variances.
Chair Kendall read the submissions of the Rehearing Abutters: 1. A Property Impact Study; 2. An Audio Engineer Study, and 3. A Petition of 82 signees.
Property Impact Study :
Chair Kendall felt that the study is subjective and that he needs to look carefully at the new study and the study done by Mr. Lemay.
Mr. Haggett felt that the new study brings a new dimension and that in the public interest he should hear the debate. The discussion between the professionals is important for the Board and the Public to listen to the discussion between the professionals. Experts should also hear the noise study..
Mr. Giffin asked if the petition had any "weight?"
Mr. Haggett went on to say that the petition opinion has an unknown petition evidentiary ??? Maybe the Local Government Center Legal Counsel could give an opinion.
Chair Kendall agreed that LGC opinion could be helpful.
Attorney Wilkins stated that the evidence submitted was not new information that should have been presented during the Public Hearing.
Mr. Moore stated that at the advice of council the Board has the discretion to review and reconsider information that they consider to warrant a fresh look whether it was "new" or not.
Mr. Burwen said that all the evidence was new and was not available before.
Mr. Scales felt that the Board was ready to vote.
Chair Kendall said that evidence presented by the Rehearing Applicants reinforced the concerns he had previously expressed (in past Cell Tower hearings). He had not been satisfied with the information submitted concerning noise and the adverse affect on the neighborhood
Mr. Moore said that the Board has the discretion to deny or grant the rehearing application based on how they perceive the newly submitted information.
Mr. Hagget said that the Board had 'tried' to hear the noise made by a Cell Tower but no equipment was running at the time of the visits.
Mr. Giffin questioned the validity of the petition, and agreed that the noise issue had not been properly addressed.
Mr. Scales moved to GRANT, and Mr. Crafts seconded, the appeal for Rehearing by Mr. Peter Burwen, et al, dated August 12, 2009, for the previous granting of a Special Exception and two Area Variances (as specified below in quotes), by the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment to New Cingular (AT&T), dated July 14, 2009, for a proposed telecommunications facility to be located at 22 High Street, Antrim, NH. Map #244, Lot #6 - Case # 2009-01 ZBA.
Roll Call Vote: Chair Kendall, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye; Mr. Giffin, aye; Mr. Scales, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye.
Motion passes.
Mr. Moore explained the process, the hearing fees, and that a public meeting for rehearing needed to be scheduled within a 30-day period.
It was determined that hearing fees must be submitted by Tuesday, September 22, 2009, and that the Rehearing would occur on October 6, 2009.
Business Meeting:
Approve August 18, 2009 minutes Mr. Haggett moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Scales seconded the motion and the minutes were approved by all.
Any other business None
At 8:50 pm, Mr. Haggett moved to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Giffin, and approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane M. Chauncey
Planning Assistant, On Behalf of the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment
| 
