 |
ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the July 18, 2006 Site Walk
Members & Staff Present:
Mary Allen Scott Burnside Bob Edwards
Mike Genest Bradley Houseworth Renee Rabideau Andrew Robblee Alex Snow Kathi Wasserloos
Members & Staff absent:
Fred Anderson Ed Rowehl Brian Sawich Paul Vasques
Public Attendees:
Beth Aborn Mike Aborn Peter Beblowski William Hein Johanna Hein Mike Kettle Cindy Kettle
Matt Monahan Kris Stewart Lisa Stewart Harold Wood
Members met at the entrance of the site, Tax Map 8A Lot 23, owned by Zeke and Mack LLC, off of Elm Avenue, Antrim, NH at 5:30 PM on Tuesday July 18, 2006 with Kris and Lisa Stewart and Harold Wood. Mr. Edwards officially recused himself from the site walk but stayed as an observer. Ms. Allen welcomed everyone to the site walk, began the meeting, and asked everyone to give their name to the planning technician, Mr. Houseworth, to be sure they were recorded in the minutes as being present. Mr. Stewart explained his plans for excavating and reclaiming the site, starting with his proposed changes to the entrance of the site. He explained that he wants to move the entrance of the road from Elm Avenue to his site to the east, further down Elm Avenue, so that it is at a greater distance from the abutter to the west, Mr. and
Mrs. Wade, as it is now. He mentioned that he has spoken with Mr. Wade about this issue and Mr. Stewart plans on sloping the land down between Mr. Wade’s property line and the new proposed road cut area. Mr. Wood explained that it will be a gradual 2:1 cut slope or a 3:1 fill slope coming down from Mr. Wade’s property to the road on Mr. Stewart’s property. Mr. Stewart plans on planting grass and trees on top of this graded slope and will try to leave as many trees near the entrance of the lot as possible. Mr. Stewart also mentioned that he wanted to leave the vegetation up along the property line between his property and Mr. Wade’s but that Mr. Wade requested that the hardwoods be taken out and replaced with softwoods, specifically hemlocks and pines, to provide more of a visual and noise buffer. Mr. Stewart plans on excavating sand from the esker located on the site and explained that he is going to try and excavate in a manner
that would contain all materials and run-off on site.
Mr. Hein asked Mr. Stewart where the traffic is going to be coming in, explaining his safety concerns regarding the location of the entrance off of Elm Avenue on to the site, the condition of Elm Avenue to support excavation trucks, and that nothing has really been done by the Town to address these road and safety issues in this area on Elm Avenue. Ms. Allen mentioned that the Board received a short report from the road agent for the Town, Bob Varnum, regarding the condition of the road and his approval of the project. Mr. Hein reiterated his concerns regarding the safety of the area and the fact that this property is surrounded by residential homes with families and children. Ms. Allen tried to clarify Mr. Hein’s concerns by asking if he was concerned about the safety issues or the condition of the road to support
this project. Mr. Hein confirmed that both were his concern. Mr. Stewart explained that he is going to put in a standard road entrance, one which conforms to the Town regulations, and hopes to use crushed stone to help keep soil and materials from spilling from the site on to Elm Avenue. He also explained that he will be putting up signs stating that trucks will be entering and exiting the site and a gate. Ms. Allen asked about hours of operation, Mr. Wood and Mrs. Stewart stated 7 AM – 5:30 PM Monday through Friday and 7 – 12 AM on Saturdays.
Members walked to the temporary gate, an old mangled truck, which Mr. Stewart explained he put in place to keep people from trespassing and partying on the site. Mr. Stewart reiterated his plans to gently slope the land from the road to Mr. Wade’s property and mentioned that it was no problem going right up to the property line if need be. Ms. Allen pointed out the pin, marking the corner of the property boundary of the site. Ms. Rabideau asked what size the pines are going to be that will be planted along the boundary between Mr. Stewart and Mr. Wade’s properties. Mr. Stewart said the trees are going to be transplanted from on site and that he wasn’t sure of the size; hopefully 6 – 8 ft. tall hemlocks. Mrs. Stewart mentioned they felt it was best to leave a tree buffer for the noise. Mr. Stewart explained his desire to excavate at the top of the front of the lot, near the entrance to Elm Avenue, and work his way down into the esker and into the lot, excavating sand as he
goes, and eventually reclaiming the excavation pit and pond at the back or bottom of the lot. Mr. Wood explained that the excavation will occur into the face of the esker so that all materials and run-off will naturally be contained within the pit or against the esker. Mr. Beblowski asked if the esker was forested, Mr. Stewart said yes.
Mr. Monahan asked Mr. Stewart about the location of the wetlands on the site, Mr. Wood showed him the wetland delineations on his updated excavation plans. Mr. Stewart mentioned that they will more clearly mark the wetlands and drainages on the soon to be amended plans and that a silt fence will be put up. Mr. Wood pointed out where the silt fence was located on the updated plans. Mr. Beblowski asked how much vegetated buffer there will be between the wetlands and the excavation areas. Mr. Wood answered there is about forty (40) feet marked on the current plans but Mr. Stewart said it could be anywhere from fifty (50) to one hundred (100) feet. Mr. Beblowski asked if the revised plans will include the exact distance of vegetated buffer between the wetlands and the excavation areas. Mr. Stewart said yes and
that the revised plans will reflect this. Mr. Beblowski clarified by asking Mr. Stewart if he was going to first excavate the site and then reclaim the area in the back of the lot near the retention pond. Mr. Beblowski mentioned that the plan looks like just an excavation plan and wondered if the elevation lines on the current plan are the existing grades or the final grades. Mr. Stewart confirmed that he was going to excavate up front and reclaim the area in the rear of the lot near the retention pond. He explained that the current plan includes the existing and reclaimed elevation lines (aka final grades) so the reclamation is part of the current excavation plan. Mr. Beblowski mentioned that a reclamation plan for the back portion of the lot had already been approved by the Planning Board two years ago when Smitty Harriman owned the pit and suggested that Mr. Stewart try to tailor their reclamation plan to Mr. Harriman’s reclamation plan.
Mr. Beblowski added that he felt the Board will want to see a reclamation plan for the rear area of the lot in the beginning of the application/ permitting process in order to have a timetable for when and how the area will be reclaimed. He also mentioned that he was also concerned that Mr. Stewart would open up and excavate more areas on the property before reclaiming the back area of the lot. Mr. Beblowski explained that this project should take a phased approach and that a schedule should be laid out for what areas are reclaimed or excavated and when. Mr. Wood explained that they are planning on doing the project in phases but are going to do different phases than already laid out by Mr. Harriman in his excavation and reclamation plan approved by the Board in November 2004. Mr. Wood added that he believes the back area of the lot has already started to naturally reclaim itself with the encroachment of vegetation into the excavated/ open pit areas.
At this time, Mr. Stewart listed his goals for the site including: 1) straighten out the road/ move the entrance, 2) excavate the esker/ area near the front of the lot, 3) reclaim the area in the back of the lot without doing any excavation, 4) check with the Board at this point in time to see how the project is going, judge from there what needs to be done based on past performance, etc. and, 5) install the retention pond in back. Mr. Wood explains that the plan right now is to excavate in the front and reclaim in the back; excavate from front to back, slowly reclaiming areas behind him as he goes; there won’t be a lot of open pits at once. Mr. Beblowski asked Mr. Stewart how many yards he plans on excavating out of the site, Mr. Stewart replied 50,000 – 100,000 yards. Mr. Beblowski asked if Mr. Stewart was
going to create a main pile or stock pile, Mr. Stewart replied no. Ms. Allen reiterated that the Board needs to know what Mr. Stewart is planning on doing with the front four acres of the lot and what is going to happen in the back area of the lot. Mr. Wood suggested a phased approach: phase 1 including straightening out the entrance, road, and excavating at the front of the lot; and phase 2 including the reclamation project and establishment of a retention pond. Ms. Hein asked Mr. Stewart what he was bringing into the lot and why. Mr. Stewart explained that he was bringing in large tree stumps, organic materials, and dirt which they are using to stabilize some of the steep slopes in the back area of the lot, near the property line to prevent further erosion of the existing slopes (a process supposedly endorsed by the state).
Members then walked along the road towards the back of the lot and stopped near a steep section of the esker that is being proposed to be excavated. Mr. Stewart explained that by pitching down into the esker, excavating into the slope, the run-off and materials will be trapped against the esker. He also stated that a lot of the vegetation will be left along the sides and bottom edges of the esker; only taking out what trees he has to in order to excavate. There was a brief discussion among many about where the road was going to be in this area and what potential trees may be affected by the straightening of the road. The members then continued along the road to the back portion of the lot where Mr. Stewart showed where the tree stumps were brought in to stabilize the slope. Mr. Hein stated that Mr. Stewart is in
an unfortunate situation as he has to deal with the history of the area and the results left from past excavation projects done by other individuals and therefore, shouldn’t be faulted for these conditions. However, Mr. Hein stated that the Board and abutters need assurance that this excavation project will be handled correctly and that this back area will be reclaimed properly. Mr. Stewart explained that he will also seed and mulch the slopes after he has pushed the old stumps and soil against them in order to prevent further erosion. Ms. Rabideau asked if the stumps will be buried in the back area or just used to establish slope, Mr. Stewart stated they will be used just for the slope. He also mentioned that he plans on putting in a retention pond to control water from draining into or on to abutter’s properties.
Mr. Wood explained that the settling pond will be designed to hold precipitation from a 50-year rain event and all of the water on site will be retained on site or drain into the ground. When asked by Mr. Wood what Mr. Beblowski thought, he replied that he has concerns over the existing status of the groundwater/ exposed creek in the back area of the lot. He stated that his professional opinion is that the excavation here was done too deep, exposed the water table, and that the water in the creek is groundwater. Mr. Stewart replied that it is more like a spring than a creek on the property. Mr. Aborn stated that he has lived here for 25 years and the constant flow of water has always been from a spring, not groundwater. Mr. Beblowski reiterated his point of the Board needing a reclamation plan up front, at the
beginning of the process, so everyone knows what is going to be done and by when. He continued that this needs to be addressed now, especially because a permit can be up to five years. He stated that this site has been raped, pillaged, and plundered in the past and that a reclamation plan needs to de designed to address these issues; set performance standards by which Mr. Stewart can abide by and the Board can hold him accountable to. The bottom line is that the Board needs to know now what the plans are for the back area of the lot, what will be excavated, what will be reclaimed, when, and why.
Mr. Stewart replied by outlining two major concerns: 1) Zeke and Mack LLC inherited these problems when they bought the property, they weren’t responsible for creating them, and 2) They have owned it awhile, paying high payments on it, and haven’t brought in any income off of the property yet. For these reasons, Mr. Stewart explained he wants to do some excavation in the front of the lot to get some money coming in off of the property to help pay for what needs to be done to reclaim the back area of the lot. He stated he would appreciate the Board allowing him to excavate some area of the lot in order to help pay for the necessary reclamation. Mr. Wood added that he thinks the back area is already naturally reclaiming itself with all of the vegetation moving in. Mr. Beblowski disagreed with Mr. Wood
stating that the back creek drainage system is not reclaimed whatsoever and the back area is by no means self-reclaimed. He stated this is why Mr. Stewart needs to provide a plan with a schedule and phases laid out up front for when things will be done. He continued that he would like to see a scale drawing, reclamation plan for the next 2-5 years that lays out a schedule and phases so that the Board can hold them accountable to their plan and they have something to follow to uphold their performance standards. Mr. Beblowski continued saying that this Board has been made promises that were never carried out; look at the existing condition of this place, it is a mess, the property lies on top of an important aquifer system and that has never been brought up or addressed. Mr. Hein added that a lot of spent ammunition is everywhere too. Mr. Stewart stated that on several other excavation projects he has worked on, he has not needed to provide a separate
reclamation plan and that he usually reclaims without a plan, without bonding, without anything. Mr. Hein reiterated his point, apologizing for someone being a whipping post but the Board and abutters need to be assured this is taken care of correctly. Ms. Allen stated that Mr. Stewart is a new applicant and that he isn’t responsible for past projects or current conditions. Mr. Stewart said that whatever the Board wants will be done, just put it in writing and it will be done. Mr. Beblowski stated that after fifteen (15) years of the pit being run like this, with promises made to the Board that were never fulfilled, the reclamation activities need to be put in writing in a plan.
Ms. Rabideau asked Mr. Stewart if any rock crushing was going to occur on the lot, Mr. Stewart said no. Ms. Allen asked what will be done to prevent erosion when vehicles get down here to cross the creek and build the retention pond. Mr. Stewart replied that besides the retention pond, hay bails, silt fences, and check dams will be put in place. At this time, Mr. Burnside showed up but had no questions. Ms. Allen asked if anyone had any other questions for the Stewarts or Mr. Wood. She also asked the Board if they had any other questions or comments. No one answered and the members walked back along the road to the front entrance of the property near Elm Avenue. At the temporary gate, Ms. Allen officially adjourned the site walk meeting at 7 PM and reminded everyone that the Zeke and Mack LLC public
hearing will continue on August 17th 2006 at the Planning Board meeting at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley J. Houseworth, Planning Technician
Antrim Planning Board
| |
