Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes- August 23, 2010
Recorded by Bob Marshall
Members present: MSteere, MBorden, GMorris, KO’Connell, BMarshall, JFletcher
7:05 Minutes
MSteere read the minutes from 8/09/2010 meeting. The following changes were made:
Line 27: Move “it’s” to read “so it’s not a 4G site.”
Line 38: Change spelling of “Condom” to”ConCom” to read “Chairperson, ConCom”.
Line 43: Insert apostrophe to read “Wood’s”.
Line 51: Change “it” to “hit” to read “If we hit water….”.
Line 69: Remove “s” from Seniors to read “Senior”.
Line 77: Remove “is” to read “This really isn’t a home based….”
Line 97: Change “purposed” to “proposed” to read “…reports for proposed cell tower…”.
Line 99: Change “of” to “on” to read …tower stakes found on the property…”.
Line 106: Insert “Comments regarding this letter:” to read: “Comments regarding this letter: MSteere stated that this letter should be referenced at the August 23, 2010 meeting. SChicione is saying that….”
Line 120 Insert new heading to read: “Discussion of August 14, 2010 Cell Tower Height Simulation”
JFletcher moved to accept the minutes as amended. MSteere seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passed.
7:20 Mail
· Letter from LGC announcing the 35th annual Law Lecture Series to take place in Keene on Sept. 15th for Cell Towers, on Sept. 22nd for Conflict of Interest and on Sept.29th for Administrative Decision-making.
· SWRPC Commission Highlights
· A Letter from National Grid re: Pipeline Failures and procedures
· A Letter from Fernald, Taft, Falby and Little re: Chandler subdivision
· Select Board Minutes from August 5, 2010 re: Wastewater hearing
· Select Board Minutes from August 5, 2010
· Letter from NH Division of Historical Resources re: request for project review by Florida Tower Partners received August 4, 2010. NH Division of Historical Resources requests a Field Meeting with the applicant and interested citizens. GMorris will contact NH Division of Historical Resources to determine next steps.
7:30 CIP
GMorris reminded members of the need to complete the various portions of the CIP for September. BMarshall asked the PB how he should handle the Parks/Recreation portion of the CIP since there is no department responsible. The PB suggested that he go to the Select Board.
7: 35 Cell Tower Height Simulation/Sitewalk Aug 14, 2010 Debrief
Present representing the Applicant:
Darren Weber-Infinigy Engineering and Surveying
Audra Klumb-A and D Klum Environmental, LLC
Kevin Brown-Property owner
MBorden stated that he and BMarshall travelled the Rte 202 route from Antrim center to Powder Mill Pond to Norway Hill to Rte 202 immediately south of Forest Road to ConVal High School. Using both the naked eye and binoculars, the balloon was not visible from those sites. He reported that he could see it from his house on Slip Road. He had gone to Knotwood Drive and could not see it from there.
GMorris reported that he had gone to the top of Gould Hill. It was visible from the Andrus lot but it was not visible from other locations. He reported it was not visible from the Greenvale cemetery, Fletcher Farm Road and Knotwood Drive, the Meeting House, Harvester Market, the Historical Society, the Fire Station or Greenfield Commons. The balloon was visible from Belmore Farm.
JFletcher reported that Sarah Timmons saw it from the top of Fletcher Farm Road. JFletcher also reported that he measured the height of the balloon after it was lowered and found the height to be 110 ft.
GMorris reported that he and others had walked the outer perimeter logging road and found it was impossible to move a crane through there as it is presently.
KO’Connell reported that the noise simulation was clearly audible at the property boundaries.
BMarshall reported that he and J Fletcher were guided up to the Chicoine property by SChicoine and he felt that it was important to determine the elevation of the arrays in relation to the elevation of Chicoine’s home.
MBorden commented that a fence was needed to protect people/children/wildlife from the 10 foot retaining wall that was to be constructed. GMorris also commented that we needed to determine the effect of the retaining wall on noise distribution.
7:55 Other Business
KO’Connell suggested that we consider the need for ordinances for the Town Meeting for 2011. GMorris reminded PB members that he had offered the opportunity to participate in an ad hoc committee to work with Mike Redmond, VP, CMRC on the development of a special zoning district for the center. GMorris suggested that we might use the Peterborough Model as a starting point.
GMorris suggested that he would like to reconsider the Vertical Take-off Ordinance should it pass on election day. He felt that we should reconsider for areas involving a lot of acreage. MBorden concurred.
KO’Connell suggested that we may want to consider frontage requirements for lots that front on two roads. MBorden said that a 100 foot setback on both roads would have a significant impact when you consider wetland/setback limitations, septic setbacks etc. on a lot. He suggested in areas where we have a lot in two zoning districts, we determine frontage by which zone you gain access to the lot from. Perhaps we should consider a similar procedure here.
Discussion ensued about setbacks and whether we have setbacks for buildings/structures less that 200 sq ft as a result of our revision in 2010 Town Meeting. BMarshall asked if we had effectively eliminated set-back requirements for temporary shelters etc. MSteere suggested that maybe we should list by name all of the structures that we feel must be in conformity with set-back requirements. It was felt that we should discuss this further at a future meeting.
8:19 Break
8:25 Chandler Subdivision
GMorris read the minutes from line 64 to line 187 from the July 12, 2010 hearing regarding the subdivision.
8:36 Chandler Subdivision hearing resumed
Present Representing Applicant:
Harvey Chandler, Applicant
Dennis McKenney, Agent for Mr. Chandler
Mark Fernald, Legal Counsel for Mr. Chandler
GMorris reopened the hearing by reading the letter received from Fernald, Taft, Falby and Little correctly naming Harvey Chandler the person receiving the limited waiver of restrictions from Ralph A. Bayer and Samuel Tamposi Jr.
GMorris then suggested we go through the list of deficiencies identified on July 12, 2010. DMcKenney presented the following changes: (from line 86 PB Minutes from 07/12/2010
Item 7-Driveways/buildings within 100’, shown on plat
Item 8-Proposed driveway with signature space for Road Agent-Addressed, see plat and note 13.
Item 9-Include building envelope and septic field-Addressed, see plat.
Item 12-Watercourses and setbacks-Addressed, see plat.
Item 15- Map with contours, soils data and test pit data-Addressed, see plat.
Item 19-Culverts, flow directions-Addressed, see plat
Item 23-Driveway plan-Addressed, DMcKenney is waiting to hear back from the Road Agent
see plat and note 13.
KO’Connell then reported back on the questions he asked of Paul Sanderson, Attorney for Local Government Center(LGC):
1. Question: What are the merits/limitations of a quit claim deed?
a. Answer: Not as sound as a Warranty Deed…simply certifies that owner is the owner of record.
2. Question: Does Mr. Tamposi still have the right to waive covenants of the subdivision?
a. Answer: The State of NH feels that once a developer sells off all of his interests in the subdivision he no longer holds an interest in it. Therefore he should have no authority to waive covenants.
3. Question: Should all holders of the covenants be notified of the application and hearing?
a. Answer: Yes, if you want to be cautious.
4. Question: Should KO’Connell recuse himself from the proceedings?
a. Answer: Possibly.
In any case, Mr. Sanderson suggested that we consult with our own attorney for answers to these questions. He suggested that maybe we shouldn’t have accepted the application, given these legal questions.
The Board then began to discuss the orphaned triangular lot. DMcKenney said we have ample frontage without the triangle lot. MSteere said that by subdividing, we may be changing the character of the neighborhood. DMcKenney said there is no prohibition against subdivision.
MSteere moved that we continue this deliberation until we can get legal opinions from our own attorney.
JFletcher seconded the motion.
GMorris then asked the PB what questions needed to be asked of our attorney.
Question 1: Should all members of the subdivision be notified as abutters since they are all holders of the covenant?
Question 2: Does KO’Connell need to recuse himself from the case since he lives in the larger subdivision?
Question 3: Does the Quitclaim Deed give the Chandler’s legal title to the orphaned triangle lot or could questions/challenges be raised?
Mr. Chandler asked if his legal counsel, Mr. Fernald, could speak. The PB agreed. Mr. Fernald said the Quitclaim deed states that Mr. Tamposi is saying that he owned the property all these years.
KO’Connell asked “What if the road moved over the years. Might that create this triangle?”
DMcKenney said “ We have two conflicting surveys here. If the town wants to pay for its own survey to resolve the dispute, let them do it. Historically this triangle served as access to the gravel pit on Bosse’s property. Mr. Chandler could have petitioned the Superior Court for ownership. He has gone this route to secure a deed to the property.”
MSteere said that Mr. Chandler has not properly come before the PB for a merger of the two lots.
D McKenney said that he was not compelled to do so.
KO’Connell said “With all due respect to Mr. Fernald, I want our attorney’s opinion.”
The PB returned to generating questions for their attorney.
Question 4: Should the acquisition of the orphaned piece have come before the PB as a merger?
Question 5: Do we have to consider the existing covenants as we deliberate the subdivision?
Mr. Chandler said that he had complied with all requests of the PB since February. He wondered why this was taking so long. GMorris responded that the meeting in February was a PCC and had no binding decisions. The received the application and the Quit claim deed in July. We need to address legal issues before we can vote on the subdivision.
DMcKenney asked if the PB had had other applications of this nature in which all covenant holders were noticed. GMorris replied that we have never had an application like this.
GMorris then went over the questions to be asked of legal counsel one final time to assure that the PB concurs. MSteere suggested that we ask if the Bosse driveway right of way can be included as part of the frontage for the lot. The questions are:
Question 1: Should all members of the subdivision be notified as abutters since they are all holders of the covenant?
Question 2: Does KO’Connell need to recuse himself from the case since he lives in the larger overall subdivision?
Question 3: Does the Quitclaim Deed give the applicant clear, legal title to the orphaned triangle lot or could questions/challenges be raised?
Question 4: Should the acquisition via the quit claim process of the orphaned piece have come before the PB as a merger?
Question 5: Does the PB have to consider the existing covenants as we deliberate the subdivision?
DMcKenney explained how the orphaned lot was surveyed. He said Mr. Bosse and Mr. Chandler have agreed to this current survey. The length of time these two driveways have been in use over this property is significant.
KO’Connell asked if the Chandler’s were claiming ownership, would they be willing to convey a portion of the orphaned triangle to give Bosse more frontage?
GMorris then asked if the PB had any more questions. MSteere asked that his question be included as question 6. GMorris agreed.
Question 6: This lot has two driveways. One for the lot and one for a lot with a different owner. Can the 2nd driveway be included as part of the frontage for the lot?
There were no other questions raised by the PB.
GMorris called the question on MSteere’s motion to continue the deliberation until legal questions were resolved. The motion was approved unanimously.
DMcKenney then asked if there were any other issues that he needed to address for this application? GMorris said we have no other requests of D McKenney pending the outcome of our legal questions.
KO’Connell asked DMcKenney about the proximity of the septic field to a potential house. Mr. Chandler shared an engineered plan for a house he was preparing to build. Members of the PB reviewed the design.
GMorris looked at the timeline for action on the Chandler subdivision application. The application was accepted on July 12, 2010 and the PB has 90 days to rule on the application. He scheduled the continuation of the deliberation until 9:00 p.m. on September 13, 2010.
9:52 Adjournment:
MSteere moved to adjourn. MBorden seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passed.
| 
