MINUTES
CHARLESTOWN PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 6, 2004
Members Present: Jesse St. Pierre – Chair; Sharon Francis – Vice-Chair; Steven Neill, Ex-Officio, Robert Beaudry, David Carter, Robert Frizzell
Alternates Present: Fred Poisson, Gail Fellows, Roger Thibodeau
Staff Present: David Edkins – Planning & Zoning Administrator
Regina Borden – Recording Secretary
Others Present: See Attached List.
CALL TO ORDER & SEATING OF ALTERNATES – Chairman Jesse St. Pierre called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. He noted the absence of David Sussman and called upon alternate member Roger Thibodeau to sit in Mr. Sussman’s place as a regular member.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2003:
Robert Beaudry moved to approve the minutes of the December 16th, 2003, meeting as printed. Sharon Francis seconded the motion. Gail Fellows noted that on page 3 of the St. Pierre, Inc. discussion it was actually “Elmendorf” rather than “Catamount Pellet” that used this property for log yard debris. Dave Edkins advised that this will be noted for clarification but it actually was “Catamount Pellet” that was mentioned during the meeting. With six members in favor, the motion carried. Roger Thibodeau abstained, as he was not in attendance at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT – Would remove the following described area from Zone E (Mixed Use) and add same to Zone A (Town Center Residential/Professional):
All property on the west side of Main Street encompassed within the area bounded by Bridge Street to the north, the Boston & Maine Railroad right-of-way to the west, River Street to the south and Main Street to the east. All property on the east side of Main Street to a depth of 250 feet from the center line of NH Route 12 from Sullivan Street, north to the southerly boundary of the Charlestown Fire Station properties (Map 32, Lots 2 & 3). – Proposed by Petition.
Mr. Edkins displayed a map on the easel with the affected area outlined in orange. Joyce Higgins, one of the signers of the Petition, explained that this is a way of making the south end and the north end of Main Street match. She would like to encourage some of the historic, nice homes to stay as they are and not be compromised by commercial businesses. To remain Zone E would make it easier to all go commercial. All of the existing businesses that are there would be grandfathered in. It would encourage home businesses and other uses permitted in Zone A.
Mr. Thibodeau questioned the use of 250 feet from the Main Street centerline to delineate a zone boundary, noting that this separates some properties down the middle. Mr. Edkins responded that is the way the existing zone lines are laid out along Main Street, although it would be preferable to follow lot lines. Mr. Neill asked how many properties are single-family homes now. Mr. Poisson responded that there are four but Joyce Higgins counted in the parsonage and one other house to make it six. Mr. Neill questioned that if this passes as presented and one of the properties that is a business at this time changes hands and the business changes to something different, would the grandfathered business have to apply for an exemption. Mr. Edkins read the following from the Zoning Ordinance –
8.4 General Provisions - “Any lawful use of buildings or land, in existence at the time this ordinance becomes effective, may continue and may change its use, though it is contrary to the ordinance, and may be permitted limited expansion, if able to meet the Development Standards contained within the Town of Charlestown Site Plan Review Regulations. Individual lots which become non-conforming as a result of these amendments may be built upon, provided that they are of a minimum size to meet State requirements for the construction of water and septic systems and meet access and setback requirements of the zone in which they are located.” Mrs. Francis said that it seems that the majority of the properties are already commercial but the point that Joyce Higgins made is good in that if this amendment is passed it will encourage the existing and future residential property owners to take care of those historic properties; they are an asset to the Town.
Mr. St. Pierre opened the meeting to the public.
Dale Aiken spoke about Zeny’s Flower Shop at 59 Main Street. He is concerned about this amendment as this property is for sale as a commercial property. Mr. Edkins said the commercial use would be allowed to continue and it could change with limited expansion as long as it meets the Site Plan Review criteria. Mr. Frizzell said it does affect what could go on the property next to Mr. Aiken's, which is a single-family residence.
Albert St. Pierre advised that he and his wife own the Heritage Restaurant. He will oppose this amendment because of what he went through in Zone A. Before they opened the Heritage Restaurant, where he is now, he had an agreement on the stone house across from the bank. They thought they met all the requirements but the Planning Board denied his application even though he was across the street from the bank, school, dentist office, lawyer’s office, the Foundation, etc. He would not want to deal with Zone A again. He doesn’t want it in the area where he owns the biggest piece of property in that zone.
Mr. Edkins read from the Ordinance – 8.4.2 – “If any non-conforming use of any building or premise is discontinued for at least a year, subsequent use shall conform to the ordinance.”
Judy Royce is opposed to the Petition. She owns the video store and is concerned about the apartment house that is next to her. If she needed to close the video store for a year then it couldn’t be sold as a commercial property. This would be a hardship for her.
Virginia Repsher said they bought a commercial building and own Fall Mountain Water Testing. At some point they expect to be able to sell it as a commercial property so she would oppose this.
Justin Shaw owns property and he rents space. By limiting this to professionals it is harder to rent out space. It is restricted if you don’t rent the space for a year.
Jesse St. Pierre advised that the Planning Board cannot change this Petition. Mr. Edkins noted that it goes on the ballot as petitioned but it would indicate the recommendation of the Planning Board; either approval or disapproval.
Mr. Frizzell moved to make a decision at the next meeting. Mr. Thibodeau seconded the motion. Mr. Frizzell felt the Board should take the time to consider the proposal. Mr. Frizzell, Mrs. Francis and Mr. Thibodeau were in favor. Mr. Neill, Mr. Carter and Mr. St. Pierre were opposed. Mr. Beaudry abstained. The motion was defeated.
Mr. Poisson noted that there are fifteen (15) properties in the affected area; nine (9) are either commercial, multi-family or a church. There hasn’t been any support from the six residential property owners. It seems that a decision would be fairly easy.
Mr. Neill moved to take a vote on this issue. Mr. Carter seconded the motion.
Vote in Favor of the proposed Amendment: None
With seven members opposed, it was unanimous not to support this proposed Amendment.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:24 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT – Would require that a Demolition Permit be obtained from the Building Inspector prior to the removal of any structure, dwelling or portion thereof in order to provide a means for better estimating the age of remaining buildings, particularly those of historic importance. – Proposed by Petition.
Joyce Higgins explained that a permit is needed to build a house, etc. so it seems that we should consider having one for demolition. We would be able to document when buildings are removed for tax records, etc. It would allow for the Building Inspector to oversee the disposal of hazardous materials, etc. They would hope that this would give a notice to abutters. Gail Fellows asked if this is going to create another fee for the taxpayers; they are paying enough. We all have to fill out the annual Inventory so the Town knows what we are doing for tax purposes. She understands the need for her neighbors to know what is going up around her but she doesn’t see the need for people to know what is coming down nor the need for the Building Inspector to know about it. Mr. Edkins
noted that abutters wouldn’t necessarily be notified about demolition and are not notified of a Building Permit unless it requires a Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Our Building Ordinance doesn’t specifically say that you need a permit for demolition but Bob Rivard would tell you that it does because of the adoption of the BOCA codes. Ms. Fellows appreciates the Historical Society and their purpose in Town but feels this kind of petition isn’t appropriate to keep track of what is going on in this Town.
Mr. St. Pierre opened the meeting to the public.
Mike Davis wouldn’t be opposed to a Demolition Permit but “removal of any structure, dwelling or portion thereof” would need to be defined. If he changed a window because of broken glass or replaced the front door he would have to obtain a Demolition Permit. Mr. Edkins felt that this is stretching it a little; it is meant to remove a part of the structure and not replace it. Mr. Thibodeau feels that Mrs. Higgins intent is trying to keep track of the historical buildings that come down. Maybe there could be an informational document filed with the Town for buildings of a certain age that are taken down but a garage built in 1955 should not require a Demolition Permit. Mrs. Higgins usually refers people that ask her for information to the Town office.
Mr. James McClammer is in favor of the intent of this proposed Amendment. He mentioned a nice post-and-beam barn on Wheeler Rand Road that the owner didn’t want any more so it was dismantled as someone in New York State wanted to purchase it. This is our history. If we had known about it ahead of time it is possible that we could have retained it somewhere in Charlestown. The purpose of this amendment is an acknowledgement; it protects the character of this Town. Mr. Thibodeau said by the time a permit is filed there wouldn’t be a lot of time to act on it; it doesn’t give a lot of time for intervention.
Mrs. Higgins would like to have documentation. The Historical Society doesn’t even have pictures of the barn on Wheeler Rand Road.
Mrs. Francis is sympathetic to the documentation of historical preservation but this may not be a good way to attain the purpose. She would hope that this Planning Board, the Historical Society and the Board of Selectmen could put this information together a different way. It is important to have the information and the documentation to achieve the objective.
Mr. Beaudry said their office on the Old Claremont Road is the original old barn; every beam is still there. His father preserved it rather than rebuild it. Some preservation has to be up to the individuals that own things. It is expensive to preserve; usually less expensive to replace. He isn’t sure that a Demolition Permit would do what Jim McClammer and Joyce Higgins want it to do.
Mr. Carter felt that by getting a permit a month ahead of time and advertising it for thirty days would take care of the notification.
Mr. St. Pierre then called for a vote on supporting the amendment
Vote in Favor of the proposed Amendment: None
With seven members opposed, it was unanimous not to support the proposed Amendment.
This Public Hearing closed at 7:36 P.M.
JOSEPH & PATRICIA PICKUL and JETTCO GROUP (Cont’d) – 7 Lot Subdivision – Old Springfield & Hammond Roads – Map 20, Lot 28 – Zones A1 (Rural Residential) and F2 (Industrial/Business): Mr. Edkins reported that the applicants will not be in tonight as they are still reviewing the Public Works Superintendent’s recommendations on the engineering.
Mr. Frizzell moved to defer this subdivision application until the next meeting on January 20th, 2004. Mrs. Francis seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
ST. PIERRE, INC. (Cont’d) – Construct Office/Scale House and Expand Existing Sand & Gravel Operation (RSA 155-E) – Jeffrey Road – Map 6, Lots 6 & 23 – Zone G-2 (Multi-Use): Mr. Jesse St. Pierre stepped off the Board because he directly associated with the applicants. Mrs. Francis assumed the Chair. Mr. Poisson was asked to sit on the Board as a regular member to replace Mr. St. Pierre. Mrs. Francis reported that at its last meeting the Board did not have sufficient information to vote on a complete application. Since then they received additional information – a description of set-backs, the proposed area of land that will be disturbed, a map that denotes where the snow storage and the Well Head Protection area are, the area of excavation,
power lines, parking lines, stock piles and the test pit reference. Hal Wilkins noted that there were 20 test pits in total but only 8 were in the excavated area.
Mrs. Francis asked Mr. Edkins if he sees any glaring absences of information. Mr. Edkins responded that we have everything in bits-and-pieces but it would be nice to have a consolidated application package. The most recent map, dated December 29th, 2003, was received. Mr. Wilkins noted that the application did change; one item lacking in completeness is the signature block but that can be put on the final plan. There have been two submittals to the Board thus far: 1) on December 1st, 2003, there was a Site Plan application, Earth Extraction plan and profiles; 2) following the first meeting and a review by Mr. Edkins, additional information was requested and that was submitted on December 12th, 2003; that included the completeness check-list, a more detailed
narrative discussing the zoning, vehicle movements and landscaping. At that meeting the Board asked for additional information that was submitted as a revised plan, dated December 20th, 2003, with clarification of the security fence, noise generating areas, and where the center of activity will be 5-10-20 years out. They aren’t in the 1,000-foot setback from the well but are in the Drinking Water Protection zone. Mr. Wilkins distributed a hand-out, dated January 6, 2004, that included: 1) Detail of Drinking Water Protection District Boundaries; 2) Concept Plan – Elevation Drawing of Proposed St. Pierre, Inc. Office / Scale House; 3) Site Plan – Proposed Restoration Plan; and 4) Modifications to Site Plan (Sheet 3 – Previously submitted) – Location of Security Fence and Note re: Pavement – Route 12A to Office. With reference to paving, the vehicle parking will remain gravel, employee and visitor parking will be paved;
Jeffrey Road will remain gravel, the new road from 12-A will be paved. There will be security fencing from the tree line behind the Forcier residence all the way back and a gate across the road; it will be a secure site.
A decision was made to postpone the slide show until the next meeting because Mr. Albert St. Pierre advised that Tim St. Pierre had surgery yesterday on his leg and would like to take part in that presentation.
Mrs. Francis referenced the checklist. Tonight we need to make sure the items are addressed. Hal Wilkins noted that on December 1st they used the minor checklist rather than the major checklist.
Mrs. Francis asked if they addressed screening and buffers? Mr. Wilkins felt that this was addressed during the site visit; there were no comments or suggestions from the Board or the public. Maybe this will be discussed during the slide presentation. Unless there is a need to create additional screening the applicants’ position is that the only landscaping they are proposing is around the office. Mr. Edkins recalled that, during the site visit, the applicants had indicated doing something along the north property line. Mr. Wilkins said from the River Pit about the only thing one can see is the main pit on Chestnut Hill Road. One can see the top of a residence. If the Board feels there is a clear need to plant trees they would include that. St. Pierre owns both
properties. Mr. Frizzell the former Owens property can be seen; maybe they want that view. They will see the trucks go by; maybe they want a berm or a heavy planting. Mr. Wilkins felt that St. Pierre can look down and see the top of that house but they can’t see any of the operation.
Mr. Albert St. Pierre asked if the Planning Board has all the specific information they need for completeness. They understand there could be changes and they have to come back for the presentation and to hear from the abutters before it is final. They are concerned for the corridor of houses through Buttonwood Lane.
Mrs. Francis asked if the Planning Board has all the information for the final topography and reclamation. Mr. Wilkins advised that the final topography is shown on the plan. The question is what will this area look like when they are done. The buildings, the parking areas and paved roads, stockpiles, etc. will be removed. Right now there is a small hole in the ground and when they are done there will be a larger hole, it slopes down gently; he displayed the sketches of the area. The entire area will be re-vegetated and stabilized. Mr. Edkins advised that we have everything that we need but he would like to see one consolidated package.
Mr. Poisson moved to accept this application as complete, as presented, with the stipulation that St. Pierre, Inc. submit a consolidated package to Mr. Edkins. Mr. Beaudry seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
Mrs. Francis opened the meeting to discussion from the public.
Mike Davis advised that the roof of his house can be seen from the site; he sees the trucks going by and is concerned. There has been noise in the pit since they lived there but that is not his main concern. His concern is the traffic coming out of the pit after they stop at the scale house. Driving into his driveway one can see the bails of hay stored along the property line. This is a year-round operation and their concerns are dust and noise from the trucks, not the pit. There is a solution by piling up some dirt and putting in some plantings. Jeffrey Road will be moved close to his property line. Mr. Wilkins indicated that they have no intention to cut any more trees; they are aware that there is a need to do some additional screening. During the site visit it was
obvious that the Davis house was there. The plantings and berm will be on the plans the next time.
On Saturday Ms. Fellows mentioned to Mr. Wilkins that there is a difference between a Well Head and a Drinking Water Protection area. Mr. Wilkins said they are not in the Well Head’s area of influence and explained the Drinking Water Protection area on the plans. Mr. Wilkins noted that the intent is that there not be any infringement on the Drinking Water Protection District. Mrs. Francis questioned the water supply; if the existing pit is going to be developed into residential use there may be a substantial number of additional water users and is that going to affect the capacity of the well and the Well Head area? Mr. Wilkins responded that the current water demand for the operation is pretty minor; about 1,000 gallons a day. In the future, it will increase.
Jim McClammer said that even before we talked about future development the current situation may be greater than at the time the delineation was done. Mr. Beaudry thought that the pump measurements were done at three times the current rates of use. Mr. Edkins will check on this as he never was able to come across the documentation or assumptions that were used ion delineating the Drinking Water Protection Zone, other than a line drawn on USGS maps. Mr. McClammer may have some documentation. Mr. Wilkins said there are two questions: 1) will they be withdrawing water from either the aquifer or the Connecticut River and that answer is “no”; and 2) will they be capturing water on the site and using it to wash – the answer is “maybe”.
Priscilla Erisman said a part of her land is on the Drinking Water Protection area. She did not see where her land is on these maps. How can you have a septic system so close to the water protection area? Mrs. Francis responded that it may be a determination that the State has to make regarding the Septic Permit. Mrs. Francis noted that Mrs. Erisman sent in two good letters describing her concerns.
Mr. Frizzell mentioned the letter received from Tim Hanson regarding the physical condition of Jeffrey Road. Why isn’t something being done? If the Town takes ownership, that would solve the problem. The abutters could bring the road up to Town standards and then the Town could take it over. Mr. Poisson felt that the St. Pierre project does not have an affect on this road. The project does affect the people that live there but not the road.
Ms. Fellows noted that on the Site Specific application, sub-surface wastewater disposal is checked “no” but isn’t that a septic tank? Mr. Edkins responded that that is a copy of the cover sheet of the application that was submitted to the State. Mr. Wilkins said this is open to interpretation but there are no jurisdictional wetlands involved and they are applying for approval for a sub-surface septic system.
Sharon Morisi spoke on air quality. You will have a concentrated area of diesel fumes; is there any way to address that? Mr. Beaudry advised that beginning with 2004 all diesel trucks have to meet a certain standard for emissions. California has had this for years. Ms. Morisi said even emissions have some fumes. That is a low-lying area. Mrs. Francis noted that regulation of vehicle emissions is a federal jurisdiction and not a local responsibility. The volume of truck traffic from the new operation will be no different than the current operation in the Village. Priscilla Erisman said when those trucks go by her house they are in a different gear; she gets a lot of diesel smoke. Mr. Wilkins noted that a lot of the traffic direction would depend on the location of
construction activity and product demand. This year there is a lot going to Claremont; next year it could be to the Vermont side maybe toward Ascutney. There could be some major development on the River Road; it will depend on the construction environment. Mr. Albert St. Pierre advised that this should be a part of the presentation to be given at the next meeting. They have a good record on the trucks.
Jim McClammer is concerned with the truck traffic.
Ms. Erisman read a portion of her letter dated December 16, 2003, which is a part of the file. Mrs. Francis pointed out that Ms. Erisman raised the issue of noise. We are lacking information on noise and need more facts. She feels that screening can help with the noise but there are tailgates banging, screening of material and the crusher within the pit area. Mrs. Morisi noted that the truck traffic affects herbal gardens; the fuel emissions render garden space unusable.
Mr. Wilkins asked what the Board is looking for – some direction? This is the same basic traffic that is there now. The pit noise can probably be isolated but a noise study will incorporate trains, truck traffic and other existing sounds. St. Pierre, Inc. meets all of the federal standards. Mrs. Francis said in terms of vehicles the concerns are on the number of vehicles and their likely routes from the pit. The excavation area will be generating noise from the crusher, loading, etc. and that is where we need some measurements that will indicate what those noise levels and frequencies are and how they compare to the existing background sounds and at the property boundaries. There are people that live pretty close by. Mr. Beaudry noted that we have to get the products out; we
need sand and salt and the trucks will probably go by Mrs. Erisman’s house. Mr. Wilkins said they are prepared to do some background noise and base line noise measurements but are not prepared to spend a lot of money for a sophisticated noise test. They live with strict MSHA standards. Mrs. Francis stated that the Town has a standard of 56 decibels. This operation doesn’t have a high pitch sound but any sound can be annoying if it is too often or too loud. The question is the mitigation measures to be used so that it doesn’t have an adverse effect on the life styles of the abutters. Mr. McClammer noted that you can’t take the noise from one operation and compare it to another location.
Mr. Poisson moved to continue this discussion to the next meeting on Tuesday, January 20th, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Neill. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
Mr. Jesse St. Pierre re-assumed his position as Chair and Mr. Poisson returned to his position as an Alternate.
PLANNING, POLICY & REGULATORY ISSUES:
Master Plan: Mr. Edkins reported that a meeting has been scheduled with Ken McWilliams of the UVLSRPC to map out areas of anticipated future non-residential development this Thursday, January 8th, at 1:00 P.M. in the Bakery Building. Everyone is welcome to attend. If members are unable to attend they can contact Mr. Edkins with comments, suggestions and/or recommendations.
ADMINISTRATION & CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr. Jesse St. Pierre received the following correspondence:
· Notice of a series of four Workshops for Upper Valley Conservation Commissioners “Building Local Conservation Leadership” sponsored by the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission along with a registration form for the 2004 workshops to be held on four dates from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. at the Montshire Museum of Science in Norwich, VT.
There being no other business, Mr. Frizzell moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Beaudry seconded the motion and with seven members in favor, the motion was approved. The time was 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted, Minutes Filed 1-12-04
Regina Borden, Recording Secretary
(Note: These are unapproved minutes. Corrections, if necessary, may be found in the minutes of the January 20th, 2004, meeting.)
| 
