MINUTES
CHARLESTOWN PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 20, 2004
Members Present: Sharon Francis – Vice-Chair, Steven Neill, Ex-Officio, 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 – Vice-Chair Sharon Francis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. She noted the absence of Jesse St.Pierre, Robert Beaudry, and David Sussman. Mrs. Francis called upon alternate member Gail Fellows to sit in for Robert Beaudry; alternate member Roger Thibodeau to sit in for David Sussman; and alternate member Fred Poisson to sit in for Jesse St. Pierre.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2004 AND JANUARY 6, 2004:
David Carter moved to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2004, meeting as printed. Gail Fellows seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
Fred Poisson moved to approve the minutes of the January 3, 2004, site visit to St. Pierre, Inc. as printed. Gail Fellows Falls seconded the motion. With six members in favor, the motion carried. Mr. Carter abstained, as he was not present at the site visit.
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 there have been no new developments on this agenda item. Previously the applicants had indicated they are re-working their plans and that it might be several weeks before they are ready to present them the Board.
Mr. Frizzell moved to table the application until the next meeting on February 3, 2004. Mr. Thibodeau 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): Gail Fellows stepped off the Board as she is an abutter. Mrs. Francis noted that at the last meeting on January 6th and during the site visit on January 3rd several people that attended expressed comments and concerns. Hal Wilkins distributed an Index of Information Submitted to the Planning Board for St. Pierre, Inc. River Pit Applications (Site Plan Review and Excavation Permit) to coincide with the consolidated packet of information that was included in the Board’s packets. There are about 30 specific items and the current plan incorporates
all of the items that were previously discussed. Mrs. Francis advised that the Board is doing two reviews and potential approvals together in one package: 1) Site Plan Review for the new office/scale house and 2) the Earth Excavation and Reclamation Plan under RSA 155-E for the expansion of the gravel pit. The Planning Board’s regulations reflect the State’s regulations for the Excavation and Reclamation review. It was noted that the lines on the map indicate the phases of excavation: the inner most area represents the existing excavation, the second area is 2004 to 2009, the third area is 2009 to 2015 and the final area is 2015 to closure which is dependent on the market for sand & gravel products. The plan also addresses the office building, parking area, scale house and the profiles.
Hal Wilkins began the full power-point slide presentation of the views at the site. The slides included St. Pierre, Inc.: 1) River Pit at the intersection of Jeffrey Road and Route 12A; 2) visible evidence of what is left of the Lake Hitchcock area; 3) existing River Pit View from SW from Jeffrey Road – Mt. Ascutney is in the background; 4) view to the NW – Jeffrey Road; 5) several slides from Route 12; 6) Intersection of Routes 12 and 12A; 7) view to NW from Route 12A; 8) view from the Forcier property; 9) view to the SW; 10) Entrance to the property – Jeffrey Road; 11) view to west looking over the field toward the pit; and 12) the existing pit.
Mrs. Francis asked for questions and comments. Jim McClammer felt that the slides were to show the aesthetics. What will it look like from the Wheeler Rand Road? They now have a great view. Mr. Wilkins responded that they are providing the information they were asked for. The St. Pierre’s purchased this property in two parcels; it was a gravel pit and wood waste site but they will return it to a green field. The restoration might be hay, corn, or a Christmas tree farm but it will be a vegetated site. It was noted that people clear acres and build houses; people cut open grand views, ridgeline development and they are never restored. St. Pierre will restore the land.
Mr. Frizzell pointed out a tree line on the plan that he believes isn’t accurate. A lengthy discussion ensued as to the location of existing and proposed trees. Mr. Wilkins agreed to re-examine this matter ad correct the site plan if necessary.
Mrs. Francis believes that the Forciers are entitled to more screening than they have now. Mrs. Erisman said the evergreens are visual and also absorb sound. The Board asked to look at a few of the slides again to view the tree lines. The location of the office building was noted.
(Planning Board Chairman Jesse St. Pierre arrived at this point in the meeting but did not sit as a member of the Planning Board, as he is directly associated with the applicants.)
Mrs. Fellows advised that the Forciers are satisfied with the existing tree and don’t want dense screening. The Board felt it would be good to have confirmation in writing from the Forciers. Mr. Poisson commented that if one looks at the plan it looks like there are large mature trees but from the slides other than the ones running from east to west they aren’t large trees. There is thin growth from north to south. Mr. Frizzell felt that the buffer should go along the Drinking Water Protection line but if viewed from the road it the pit will be seen any way so what’s the use. Mrs. Francis noted that the existing tree line is thin and spotty but it will fill in in the spring and summer.
Mr. Poisson noted that the revised plan includes the new berm. Mike Davis said this is the berm that was discussed but he doesn’t see anything that was added along Jeffrey Road that he and Albert St. Pierre agreed on. On Jeffrey Road one can see his log cabin, barn and driveway. Mr. Wilkins said they would add another berm in that area to screen the view from the residences to the scale house.
There was discussion relative to future owners of properties being entitled to have vegetative protection. Mr. McClammer felt it would be prudent for the Board to have a buffer because properties do change hands. This project will go on for about 50 years. Mr. Thibodeau felt that if the Forciers don’t want buffering the Board shouldn’t force it down their throats. Ms. Fellows offered to discuss this with the Forciers again. Tim St. Pierre agreed with Ms. Fellows and said they discussed this with the Forciers a few times and they aren’t interested in extra screening at this time. Mr. Wilkins noted that the Board would have an opportunity to review the Excavation Permit and cycle every few years.
Mr. Poisson referred to No. 8 on the index distributed by Mr. Wilkins – he doesn’t think that the water line is shown in the correct location. It goes down Buttonwood Lane rather than River Road. Mr. Wilkins will get the “as built” plan and correct that.
Mr. Thibodeau asked if St. Pierre will be required to submit an SPCC (Spill Prevention, Containment & Countermeasures) plan to the State due to the fact that they are so close to the Well Head Protection area and the River? Mr. Wilkins responded “no” but they are required to meet all regulations. A spill prevention program is a part of the requirements of St. Pierre. Mrs. Francis said that the fueling is now taking place at the pit. She felt that the Board should have copies of the permits for the files.
Mrs. Francis talked about noise as discussed during the December 1st meeting. The Town’s standard is 56 decibels at property lines of abutting residences. What verification can St. Pierre give the Board that they can meet that standard? Mr. Wilkins stated that those regulations are unrealistic. When standing by the side of the road when a passenger car goes by it breaks 70 decibels. They will not exceed federal standards. By speaking at this meeting Mr. Wilkins is violating the regulations now. Tim St. Pierre stated that they cannot be held to 56 decibels – it can’t be done. Mr. Poisson asked if they have taken readings by the church when the crusher is running at the main pit? Tim St. Pierre has taken readings and he stated that they are
in the high 40s. The trucks themselves can’t be under 56 decibels. The processing isn’t a problem. Mr. Frizzell asked if we are talking about the noise at the property line or about the operation or the trucks? Mrs. Francis felt that the regulation isn’t applying to the coming-and-going of the traffic but to the stationary machinery on the site but it doesn’t say specifically. Mr. Edkins agreed that the regulation isn’t clear. It doesn’t differentiate between noise generated on the site by stationary equipment or traffic coming-and-going. Mr. Davis asked if the federal standard of 70 decibels includes truck traffic? Tim St. Pierre said their safety regulations are based on “time weight average”. Mrs. Francis wants to be sure that the noise levels don’t annoy the abutters.
Mr. Edkins advised that the regulations do contain a provision to allow the Board to alter or waive the standards upon written request from the applicants if there is a good cause shown. Mr. Wilkins said it is easy to measure the truck traffic, it is a modest operation, the crusher will move but will always be in the bottom of the pit and, over time, will go lower as indicated by the “NG 1, 2 and 3” notations on the plan. Mr. Edkins asked Mr. Davis if the noise from the trucks is objectionable to him now. Mr. Davis responded, “Not now – it is acceptable”. He is concerned about new noise that may be generated by trucks stopping and starting at the new scale house.
Mr. McClammer said some days he can hear the crusher. He suggested that to make the abutters happy, the Board could ask the applicant to hire a professional acoustical engineer to work on the trucks and the operation; the engineer could make some suggestions to reduce the noise levels. Mr. Poisson asked if the MSHA sound levels take into consideration the noise levels, too. Tim St. Pierre responded “all of the noise”. Mr. Edkins suggested that if St. Pierre, Inc. put together a letter explaining their position on the noise issue, what they can offer and what they can do to mitigate the noise that gives the Board something to work with. Mr. Poisson noted that is a State highway with many trucks that they cannot control. Mr. Thibodeau noted that one can hear traffic on Route 12 when
standing in the pit. Mrs. Francis pointed that sound is measured on a logarithmic scale and she would feel more comfortable with some actual measurements with the crusher and distances from the nearest neighbor; some truck sound levels on Jeffrey Road.
Responding to Mrs. Erisman’s comment regarding an additional 100+ trucks a day, Tim St. Pierre said there will be a zero increase of trucks over the current operation – the level truck traffic will not change. He noted that currently they run three operations - the Gristmill quarry, River Pit and the main pit. Right now they are trucking rock back from the Gristmill to the main pit – roughly 70 trips a day. They truck raw gravel out of the River pit to the main Pit to process it. The big advantage to the move is that those trucks will be processing at the River pit eliminating about 100 trucks a day through the village of North Charlestown. The decrease will be dramatic.
Sharon Morisi asked where the other material is coming from. Mr. Wilkins responded that no material for crushing comes in from other operations but only from the St. Pierre operations. At the height of the Washington Street project in Claremont, the maximum over the scale deliveries was 175 trucks a day. There is also St. Pierre local traffic; some days there is no local traffic. Mr. Poisson asked how many times a day do the trucks refuel? Tim St. Pierre said on the average once a day. Mr. Wilkins said that of the 175 one time maximum, some were empty, so you could multiply that by two but it is based on 175 trip ends. Tim St. Pierre said their goal is to close the pit in North Charlestown and begin the final reclamation; this is the first phase. Mr. McClammer noted that
this is a big project; it will have an impact on the Gristmill site and the main pit. We need more data.
Mrs. Francis said they can’t phase out of the North Charlestown pit until they have approval for this shifting of the operation. We need a plan for the reclamation. Mr. Wilkins responded that they could put together a phased-in plan in concept; a general plan would make it easy. Mr. Edkins advised that in the most recent submittal there is a statement that no restoration activities are expected until 2015, however state statute requires that any contiguous area of five acres or more that has been depleted of material has to be reclaimed within twelve months. That is what the Planning Board is looking for and an understanding in writing of what the minimal reclamation standard will be in terms of mix of seed Christmas trees, etc. Mrs. Erisman said it seems that all of the permits would
have to start in again. The Gray property was never a part of the pit, how can it be grandfathered in. Mr. Edkins said that the Town has recognized the existing pit as an operating pit since the late 1980s or early 1990s and they have collected the taxes. The expansion onto the Gray property is the reason for the current application.
Mr. Davis asked what the proposed operation hours would be? Mr. Wilkins responded Monday through Friday it will be 7:00 am to 5:00 pm and Saturday it will be 7:00 am to 1:00 pm. There will be no Sunday operations except for emergencies. Tim St. Pierre added that Sundays are only for their snow equipment to do the plow routes.
Mr. Edkins noted that item No. 10 on the Index…“Correct Perimeter of Drinking Water Protection District is still incorrect. Mr. Wilkins will take care of that.
Mrs. Francis addressed bonding. Do we need bonding? Mr. Edkins stated that Town and state law requires bonding for reclamation. It will not be required for the roadways as they are not municipal roads. Mr. Wilkins will present something along the lines of the bonding on the Gristmill.
Mr. Edkins noted that in the packet of new information submitted by Mr. Wilkins, the last paragraph that talks about St. Pierre adding additional buildings to this site over a period of years. Those additional buildings will also require Site Plan Review.
A hand-delivered letter was received from Mrs. Priscilla Erisman about the St. Pierre operation and Mrs. Francis advised that it would be placed in the file. A copy of the letter will be included in the packets for the next meeting.
Mr. Poisson moved to table this agenda item until the next meeting in the interest of getting on to other agenda items. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
Mr. Wilkins will work on the noise, bonding, planting and reclamation and will meet with Mike Davis on the berm and screening. Mr. Thibodeau recommended that Mr. Wilkins draw in the trees as accurately as possible.
The Planning Board took a recess from 8:48 to 8:56 P.M.
LEONARD T., Sr. & GAIL C. POLAND – Two (2) Lot Subdivision – Acworth and Old Providence Roads – Map 35, Lot 5 – Zone E (Mixed Use): Wayne McCutcheon of Wayne McCutcheon Associates, Inc. represented the applicants. He distributed revised prints of the proposed subdivision plan. The abutters were notified. Linda Plourde and Daniel Rafferty were present. The Polands are proposing to subdivide a five (5) acre lot from their 130-acre parcel on the Acworth and Old Province Roads. The lot that will be built on is the 5 acres. There are some steep slopes toward the Acworth Road and brook bed. It is considered a “B” slope that is an easy slope to work with. An existing shed is on the property. Improvements will include a
septic system and a well site. A driveway serving the new lot is proposed off the Town-maintained portion Old Province Road and the Highway Supervisor has approved this location. The curb cut is south of the culvert; the driveway won’t exceed 10% because it is so long. The 68 feet of frontage on Acworth Road includes a pre-existing 50 foot right-of-way to an otherwise landlocked lot to the west of the Poland property. If the Polands want to improve that private road they will need the extra width. Mr. Edkins noted that the tax map shows that strip as being a part of the Scanlon property but after a review of the Deeds and previous subdivision plans, it was determined that this strip was retained by the Polands and it will have to be corrected on the Tax Maps. The Town plows and maintains the Old Province Road to just beyond the driveway of the existing farmhouse. The portion of the road beyond that point is Class 6. The Martel’s take care of their part of the road. Mr.
Edkins noted that one of the Town’s main concerns concern is that there isn’t water coming down the new driveway into the Town road.
Mrs. Fellows moved to accept the subdivision application as complete. Mr. Neill seconded the motion. Mr. Poisson abstained because of a potential conflict of interest, noting that he employs Mr. & Mrs. Poland’s son. With six members in favor, the motion carried.
Mrs. Francis advised that this would be taken up for final action at the next meeting on February 3rd, 2004.
JAMES & PATRICIA CORMACK d/b/a PARTY TIME FAMILY FUN ZONE – Operate Banquet/Function Room at Existing Recreation Facility & Retail Store – 3847 Claremont Road – Map 2, Lot 2 – Zone E (Mixed Use): James and Patricia Cormack are seeking an amendment to their previously approved site plan (retail party store and arcade) to include a function/banquet/party room on the second floor of the new structure. This area would be used to host catered parties, receptions and other functions on a rental basis. Mrs. Fellows is concerned with parking. Mrs. Cormack responded that they have the parking in front of the party store and arcade. During the winter there are probably only one or two cars parked there. They currently have 28 regular spaces and 26 overflow
spaces on the lawn. The overflow spaces are not plowed but the 28 regular spaces are fully plowed. The overflow spaces could be plowed, if necessary. Mr. Thibodeau asked if there is a mound septic system in the overflow parking area. Mrs. Cormack said some of it but they still have room around the building. Mr. Edkins noted that the plan provided to the Board was the original plan submitted for the party store.
Mrs. Fellows asked if they are planning to do this in the summer time? Mrs. Cormack said “no” but it might be possible on a rain day if they had an outdoor party planned and they could move it inside but on a normal summer day it would be outside. They have been having kids parties there since they opened – maybe 8 to 12 kids. Mrs. Francis asked if there is a back entrance? Mrs. Cormack provided pictures – it is a covered staircase and there is an inside entrance to the arcade. Mr. Edkins noted that the Building Inspector indicated meets all codes for the proposed use. Mrs. Cormack said they went over and above the requirements for safety reasons. They have a Catering License from the State and are up-to-code with them. Mr. Neill asked that a copy of
the Catering License be provided for the file. They also applied for a six-month, specific event Liquor License for when the recreation business is closed. (Probably the six-month period would be October 1st through April 1st). The inspector has visited the site. They don’t want people to bring in their own liquor but rather want to control it; Mrs. Cormack will be the bartender and has gone through classes.
Mr. Frizzell advised that there is not to be any parking on Route 12. Mrs. Cormack said they are strict about that. If the outdoor facilities are open the banquet room would be closed. Mrs. Cormack advised that they have had one party of 74 people with a live band from 7:00 to 11:00 pm. She submitted letters from her two closest neighbors stating that they had no problems with that event. Mrs. Francis asked that copies of the Catering Permit and the Liquor Licenses be provided. Mr. Neill asked what the bathroom situation is? Mrs. Cormack said there is one bathroom in the party room and one in the arcade. Mr. Cormack added that the house is on a separate septic system. Copies of the septic system permits will also be submitted.
Mr. Poisson moved to approve this amendment to the previously approved site plan as submitted, subject to receipt of the requested permits and licenses. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
Mrs. Cormack asked the Planning Board to issue a letter to the State advising that bands are allowed to perform in this facility. The Board unanimously agreed to have Mr. Edkins include that provision in the Notice of Decision.
Signage: Mrs. Cormack submitted Pictures of the signage on the new building. Mrs. Cormack advised that they were led to believe by the sign company that they didn’t need permits for small signs like “ice cream”. Mr. Edkins felt that the sign permit for the new building would replace the freestanding sign out front. Mrs. Cormack said the three small signs above the doors were to direct the people – “Ice Cream” – “Arcade” – “Party Store”. Mr. Edkins read a section from the Ordinance regarding directional signs “no higher than five feet off the ground”. These signs are higher. Mrs. Cormack noted that the signs are 12” tall and 5 or 6’ long. Mr. Edkins advised that the regulations
allow for one sign attached to the building and one free-standing sign per business and that no individual sign be more than 50 square feet. Mrs. Cormack said that the Family Fun Zone and the Party Store are separate corporations. Following a discussion pertaining to taking down the signs, Mr. Poisson said he cannot see taking the signs down as it would be quite an expense nor can he see penalizing the applicants. Mr. Neill recommended that the Board revisit this at the next meeting when the applicants bring in the application. Mr. Frizzell felt these signs are like advertising from the street rather than directional signs. Mr. Cormack said the wiring above the doors was done for the signs, is it possible to make an exception to allow for smaller signs above the doors. Mr. Edkins felt that Mr. and Mrs. Cormack could make an application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to try to keep the signs the way they are or to try cutting
down on the size but keep the same location.
PLANNING, POLICY & REGULATORY ISSUES:
RSA Books: Mr. Edkins distributed copies of the newest RSA books for the Planning Board.
Town Report: Mr. Edkins distributed copies of the draft Planning Board Report for the annual Town Report. The Board reviewed and approved the report for inclusion in the Town Report
Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Region Planning Commission: Mrs. Francis asked for a report on the last meeting with Ken McWilliams. Mr. Edkins reported that Steve Neill came to the meeting with Mr. McWilliams. They identified the sites of probable nonresidential development that were mentioned previously along with other sites. Mr. Edkins will have to spend some additional time doing the other Existing Land Use map. The Finance Committee has approved the appropriation of $10,000 for continuation the Master Plan work. The next thing after the Land Use map is the Build-Out Study. After that they will move onto the Visioning Workshop.
2004 Deliberative Session: The Town Meeting Deliberative Session has been set for Wednesday, February 4th, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. in the Middle School gym.
Filing Period: Tomorrow is the first day of the filing period for Town offices. The filing period runs from January 21st through January 30th. The Planning Board has two seats open – Jesse St. Pierre and David Carter’s terms are expiring.
Violation: Ms. Fellows advised that, at this time of the year, you can see seven junk vehicles and other material by the barn on the Barry Westine property on Ox Brook Road. Mr. Edkins will take a look at it.
ADMINISTRATION & CORRESPONDENCE:
· A post card was received on the “Sustainable Communities 2004” conference to be held in Burlington, Vermont, from July 14 to 18, 2004.
· A notice was received from the Sullivan Superior Court advising that the Court will conduct a Case Structuring Conference on the Morningside lawsuit on April 12, 2004.
· A letter was received from the Department of Environmental Services stating that the Site Specific Permit has been extended for two years (until November 1, 2005) for Carroll Concrete Co., Inc.
There being no other business, Mr. Frizzell moved for adjournment. Mrs. Fellows seconded the motion and with seven members in favor, the meeting adjourned at 10:14 P.M.
Respectfully submitted, Minutes Filed 1-27-04
Regina Borden, Recording Secretary
(Note: These are unapproved minutes. Corrections, if necessary, may be found in the minutes of the February 3rd, 2004, meeting.)
| 