MINUTES
CHARLESTOWN PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 3, 2004
Members Present: Jesse St. Pierre – Chair, Sharon Francis – Vice-Chair, Steven Neill, Ex-Officio, David Carter, Robert Frizzell
Alternates Present: Gail Fellows, Fred Poisson, 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 7:05 P.M. He noted the absence of regular members Robert Beaudry and David Sussman and called upon alternate members Gail Fellows and Roger Thibodeau to sit in their places. Steven Neill was not present at this time but arrived shortly after the meeting began.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2004:
Sharon Francis moved to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2004, meeting as printed. Gail Fellows seconded the motion. With six members in favor, the motion carried. Jesse St. Pierre abstained, as he was not present.
LEONARD T., SR. & GAIL C. POLAND – Two Lot Subdivision – Acworth and Old Province Roads – Map 35, Lot 5 – Zone E (Mixed Use): Mr. Edkins advised that this two lot subdivision application was accepted as complete at the last meeting. There were no abutters present at this meeting. Wayne McCutcheon of Wayne McCutcheon Associates, Inc. is representing the applicants and summarized the information presented at the last meeting.
(Mr. Neill arrived at this time.)
Mrs. Francis moved for final approval of the two-lot subdivision on the Acworth and Old Province Roads for Leonard T., Sr. & Gail C. Poland, as presented. Mr. Thibodeau seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
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): Surveyor Robert Palmer was in attendance representing the applicants. He presented a revised plan noting that his clients have reduced their request for subdivision from seven lots to five lots. They also decided not to extend sewer into the property but rather propose to utilize on-site septic systems. They have done test pits. The proposal is for three residential lots rather than four – No. 1 (just under a ½ acre), No. 2 (just over ½ acre) and Lot 3 (1.23 acres) – these would all be served by the extension of a 4” water line going across
the Old Springfield Road. There would be two industrial lots rather than three – No. 4 would be approximately 2.02 acres with an on-site septic system and well and No. 5 would be approximately seven acres and has an existing industrial facility served by a septic system and well on it. The engineer is in the process of submitting the plan for the State approval. Mr. Neill noted that these revised plans were not received until 5:00 P.M. today.
Mr. Neill moved to continue this application until the next meeting on February 17th so that the Public Works Superintendent has an opportunity to review the revised plans. Mrs. Francis seconded the motion.
Mr. Frizzell questioned if the Board has the right to not allow lots that are within range of the municipal sewer line but are not connected. Mr. Edkins responded that if you have an occupied structure within 100 feet of the sewer line they are required to connect but these are all well beyond 100 feet. Mr. Palmer said all of the connection options would require a pump station. Mr. Edkins noted that on the engineer’s plans the new long commercial lot has 180 feet of frontage but the Town requires 200 feet – Mr. Palmer pointed out that on his revised plan the correct frontage is shown. Mr. Poisson asked if these meet the minimum lot size requirement? Mr. Edkins said the residential lots in the Old Springfield Road area are in the A-1 zone and the minimum lot size is 15,000 sq. ft. Mrs. Francis asked if the lot lines are staked out? Mr. Palmer advised that they are flagged and labeled. It was noted that no abutters were present. Mr. Frizzell said the Board is not required to
but questioned if the abutters should be re-notified of the next meeting as this application has gone on for so long and there have been changes. There was a general consensus that, after the abutters have been notified, they are supposed to keep track of the proceedings.
Vote: With seven members in favor, the motion carried and the application was tabled until the February 17 meeting.
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): Jesse St. Pierre and Gail Fellows stepped off the Board. Mrs. Francis assumed the Chair and asked Fred Poisson to sit in for Gail Fellows. Mrs. Francis reported that at the last meeting a letter was received from Priscilla Erisman and copies were included in the Board’s packets for this meeting. Another letter from Ms. Erisman, dated February 2nd, 2004, was submitted at this time and read by Mrs. Francis; it was entered into the file. As a result of that letter, Mrs. Francis felt it might be appropriate to pick-up the questions about the operation
being grandfathered. Mr. Edkins reported that he had researched the files and provided the following information: In 1989 when RSA 155-E was modified and required existing pits to make submittals to the Town, the Planning Board wrote letters to all owners of properties that they determined had pits on them. On March 7th, 1989, the Town wrote to Temple-Eastex (the owner of the property at that time) to advise that they were required to submit a reclamation plan. Temple-Eastex wrote back stating that they had not operated a gravel pit on the property and had no plans to operate one and therefore they felt that no further action was required. The Town wrote back saying that even though they had no plans to operate the pit they were required to close that pit and were obligated to reclaim it. Temple-Eastex wrote back that same year saying that they were currently considering sale of the property to a party who would be interested in a
continuation of the gravel mining activity but should this transaction not be completed, their company will proceed with appropriate restoration of the excavated area. In January of 1992, Mr. Edkins’ predecessor, Sue Spaulding, wrote to St. Pierre, Inc., which had acquired the property, providing them with the information they needed to file to address the issue of the pit on the property. In 1992 St. Pierre submitted maps, plans, reclamation specifications, etc. The Planning Board reviewed this material during a meeting in February of 1992 and they found it acceptable. The Town has recognized the property as an operating gravel pit since that time. It is possible that there were some procedural flaws back then but the fact is that they are going through the full RSA 155-E process now so everybody has the opportunity to express their views and concerns. The file is available for examination. Mr. Poisson stated that he and Mrs. Francis
were involved in that process and there were about a dozen property owners that received those letters but St. Pierre was only one or maybe two companies that made an effort to come forward with plans. Mrs. Francis reminded everyone that right now the Board is using 2004 rules and regulations for an application submittal.
Mrs. Francis read the letter dated January 31st, 2004, as submitted by Steven Forcier; he feels that barriers or buffers beyond what is shown on the plan are not necessary at this time. Ms. Fellows spoke with Mr. Forcier and he is happy with what St. Pierre is doing and doesn’t want anything further. Mr. Edkins noted that the letter was hand delivered by Mr. Forcier who conveyed the same feelings to him.
Hal Wilkins distributed copies of additional project information, dated February 1st, that included: 1) Modifications to the Site Plan; 2) Revegetation Plan for the River Pit; 3) Response to the “Noise Regulation” issues; and 4) Reclamation Performance Bond. These matters were requested at the last meeting. Amendment No. 2, dated February 1st, 2004, was available.
Albert St. Pierre advised that they are in agreement on the additional trees with Mike Davis but are still working on the berm. He stated that “whatever it takes” to block Mr. Davis’ house from the pit would be done. Mrs. Francis noted that the pit will move over time and, at some point, may be exposed again. Albert St. Pierre responded that the ground rises so that should not be an issue. Mike Davis asked what type of vegetation would be there? Hal Wilkins felt maybe hemlock, red pine or white pine. Albert St. Pierre said the trees would be 6 or 8 feet tall with pretty much almost touching branches (similar those planted to near the school).
Mrs. Erisman noted that originally she was asking for a berm on the south side of lot No. 26 but now would just as soon not have a berm there as she feels that the only noise will be from the trucks. Mr. Poisson noted that Mr. Forcier and Mrs. Erisman are opposed to the berm. Mr. Thibodeau suggested holding off on the berm until the operation begins to see if the abutters want it there. Mrs. Francis recommended approving the plan with the berm but deferring the installation subject to the circumstances. The berm has a variety of uses such as sound mitigation, controlling noise, dust and screening. Mr. Wilkins felt that the row of trees could be planted so they do not obstruct Mrs. Erisman’s view of Mt. Ascutney. Mrs. Sue Forcier advised that the berm is okay. Jim McClammer
would rather see a vegetative buffer than a berm; they are more effective for noise and dust. We should be careful that everybody is happy because it will be there for a long time. Mr. Wilkins noted that it is unusual for the applicant to want to go beyond what is asked of him or set a higher standard, a vegetated berm provides several values and the applicant would like the vegetated berm to remain. The berm would be 10 to 12 feet high.
Mr. Carter asked what direction are the prevailing winds? Mrs. Erisman responded that they are usually from the northwest toward Route 12. Tim St. Pierre advised that there is already a tree line along the railroad bed. Mrs. Erisman is concerned that the berm will make the train whistle louder and there isn’t much of a tree line left there, it is thin. Mr. McClammer noted that this is a scenic by-way and there is tourist traffic. You can see that for quite a distance. It would be nice to have a contiguous buffer line of trees there. A landscape architect could offer some suggestions to buffer it from the community.
Hal Wilkins noted that the scale on the plan has been changed. Modifications to the Site Plan include the following: 1) additional plantings along the tree line immediately opposite (north of) the proposed office / scale house; 2) additional plantings and the construction of a berm along the northerly property line, to further obscure the view to/from North Charlestown Village; 3) correct names of several adjoining property owners; 4) correction of the line depicting the Drinking Water Protection District; 5) clarification of existing tree line at the Forcier residence – there are no plans for additional tree plantings based on Mr. Forcier’s decision; and 6) construction of a vegetated berm, approximately 600 feet in length, located between the Forcier residence and the proposed office / scale
house, for the purpose of providing an effective visual barrier (plus airborne dust suppression) to the material stockpile and pit operations to the west.
Mr. Poisson suggested asking St. Pierre, Inc. to construct a berm in the area of the eastern boundary of their plan that is acceptable to the Forcier’s and Mrs. Erisman at this time and a clause be in the final approval that every five years the Planning Board can review this portion of the plan only to see if any screening modifications are needed.
Revegetation Plan for the River Pit: The applicant proposes to rough grade and stabilize, then fine grade and prepare for planting, all areas of the gravel pit operation in conformance with the “Minimum and Express Reclamation Standards” of Title XII, Chapter 155-E:5 and 155-E:5-a. These areas will be fertilized and planted with a “New Hampshire Field Mixture” consisting of 50% alfalfa and 50% Timothy seed, at a planting and fertilization rate appropriate to the soil and season. Mr. Wilkins said the first planting would be a hay planting. Mrs. Francis noted that reclamation is to be done in five-acre segments.
Response to the “Noise Regulation” issues include the following: 1) the Noise-Sound Pressure Levels expressed in Section 5.7.4, (B), Table 2 of the Charlestown Site Plan Review Regulations are arbitrary and unrealistic; 2) the applicant requests that the Planning Board waive that portion of the regulation and substitute a ‘not to exceed’ level of 70 decibels at the property line for activities in the designated pit area. In response to the specific requirements of Section 5.8.1 (Waivers), the applicant represents: a) That an increase in the allowable permissible noise level is not inconsistent with the Town’s objective in maintaining property values and the ’quiet enjoyment’ of the adjoining properties. Current noise levels generated by Route 12A
road and rail traffic exceed the proposed levels at the St. Pierre River Pit site, thus there would be no further reduction in property values or increase in truck traffic and the character of the neighborhood would be essentially unchanged. b) That it is impracticable – impossible – for any operation, even for day-to-day residential activities, to comply with the 56-decibel limitation. As was demonstrated at the January 20, 2004, Planning Board hearing, normal public conversation exceeds the permissible limits in a residential area. c) That this waiver, if granted, would not be detrimental to the Town of Charlestown or to abutting property owners; rather, it would allow the proposed St. Pierre operation to be conducted in a manner consistent with current commercial activities in the neighborhood and would be an integral component of the planned closure of the St. Pierre, Inc. “Main Pit” on Chestnut Hill Road. The problem is the
background noise – their operation is down in the hole. This new operation will take the trucks out of the Village of North Charlestown.
Mrs. Francis asked if St. Pierre has monitored the noise from the crusher from the main pit for 500 feet to 1,000 feet? Tim St. Pierre responded that from the main pit if you walk to the mailboxes to the left of the church you are at about 56 decibels. They can moderate the employees and other contract drivers on the property but there is no control over the truck traffic on Route 12A. At the property line they can keep truck generated noise levels down to 70 decibels. Mr. Wilkins felt the pit operation itself could comply with the 56 decibel standard.
Mr. Davis asked how many trucks a day are they currently running out of the Jeffrey Road operation? Tim St. Pierre responded 5 or 6 trucks now but in their peak times they run a couple hundred trucks. Mr. Davis said the trucks that drive by his property do not generate an excessive amount of noise but they asked for protection from the stopping and starting at the scale house. He doesn’t hear any noise from the bottom of the pit. Mrs. Forcier said they have lived there for fifteen years and indicated that the train makes a tremendous amount of noise sometimes. The dump trucks won’t make it any worse than it is with all the other traffic.
Mr. McClammer felt the most obnoxious aspect of this project is the volume of truck traffic as it will increase the issue of safety on the road and he is concerned with the interconnection between the current pit and the Jeffrey Road operation. They expected that the current pit would close. Now it appears that there is a clear intention to change the use of the existing pits to bring in material from off site pits such as the Gristmill quarry to be processed at the North Charlestown pits. He asked that the Planning Board ask for the processing to be done at the remote sites to minimize the number of truck trips in this area. Tim St. Pierre feels that the local Board doesn’t have the power to regulate the State highways. Mrs. Francis noted that the issue of bringing material back and
forth from the Gristmill site is not before this Board. Mr. Wilkins noted that all of these operations go through phases of growth. The Gristmill is a tight site and they can’t get the crusher in there yet. Steve Zaleski lives on Bradley Road and the noise isn’t too bad but he does hear the tailgates on the trucks. He is okay with the project. Mrs. Fellows stated that truck traffic has increased and they all knew that it would increase when the bridge was fixed. It is pretty steady and the noise appears to be the braking of the trucks approaching bridge.
Mr. Poisson moved that the Planning Board grant the applicants request for a waiver of the regulation in Section 5.7.4 (B) as requested in the applicants document entitled Modification of the Site Plan No. 3 – Response to the “Noise Regulation” issues. The requirement of 56 decibels is waived and set at 70 decibels. Mr. Carter seconded the motion. With six members in favor, the motion carried.
Reclamation Performance Bond includes the following: The applicant proposes to secure an irrevocable performance bond in the amount of $1,500.00 per open acre per year. This bond would be revised annually prior to the resumption of site activities and would be in full conformance with the language of Section 5.9 “Construction Completion and Bonding” of the Charlestown Site Plan Review Regulations and also with the “issuance of Permit” requirements in the “Excavation Site Regulations”. Tim St. Pierre added that a report on the excavation progress has to be sent to the State of New Hampshire annually and the Town receives a copy. This is not hard or expensive to do.
Mrs. Francis questioned the location of the Drinking Water Protection District boundary and the new water main serving the property. Mr. Edkins advised that the location of the District boundary and water main appear accurate on the new plan. Mr. Edkins detected two different sets of contour lines on the plan. Mr. Wilkins explained that this comes from putting two surveys together and it can be cleared up.
Mrs. Francis felt that most issues have been addressed except for the location of the berm and plantings. Mrs. Erisman advised that she is not satisfied but is all done with this process. Mrs. Francis stressed that this Board is interested in the abutter’s comments. There was discussion relative to having another site visit in the spring.
Mr. Poisson was asked to re-read his previous suggestion “that St. Pierre construct a berm in the area of the eastern boundary as shown on the plan that is acceptable to the Forcier’s and Mrs. Erisman at this time and a clause be in the final approval that every five years the Planning Board can review this part of the plan only to see if any modifications are needed”. Mrs. Erisman would not say that anything was acceptable. It was recommended that the following change be made: “that St. Pierre construct a berm in the area of the eastern boundary as shown of the plan in consultation with the abutters at this time and a clause be in the final approval that every five years the Planning Board can review this part of the plan only as it relates to buffers and plantings.”
Mr. Davis asked for a review of the buffer on his side of the property also; change “eastern boundary” to “boundaries”. Mr. McClammer felt it should be screened as much as possible. He would like to see more detail, as he doesn’t want to see it when driving down the River Road. Mr. Poisson said his suggestion wasn’t meant to address the whole plan but only with a specific issue on the easterly boundary. The St. Pierre’s have indicated and made it clear that they are working with Mr. Davis; he wants to keep it that way. Mr. Neill said this would give this Board the right to review this situation whether the abutters are happy or not. Mr. Davis is on the north boundary where there is a berm and buffer area proposed. Mr. Frizzell felt that if Mr. Davis is not happy he can come back to the Board at any time but St. Pierre, Inc. has stated that they are working with him. Mr. Davis isn’t
concerned with St. Pierre but years down the road a big corporation might own the property. Mr. Poisson indicated that he would go along with the change as long as someone is a direct abutter. Mr. Edkins stated that the permit that the Planning Board issues isn’t transferable without the Board’s approval. Mr. Frizzell felt that the proposed motion should include both abutters and the Planning Board. Mr. Wilkins said this is a resource that is being removed and will be replaced with alfalfa and timothy seed. Eventually it will be something more, maybe evergreens, in keeping with the neighborhood. In five years the Board might want to review what has been accomplished. Tim St. Pierre stated that he is applying for a 20 year Excavation Permit.
Mr. Poisson moved to accept this Plan, as presented, final approval with the following modifications: 1) the waiver request for regulation 5.7.4 (b) is granted as approved tonight; 2) every five years the Planning Board has the option of reviewing the berm and buffer issues if abutters have requested such review; 3) the application is subject to any needed State permits; and 4) Performance Bond will be posted in the amount as agreed to tonight at $1,500.00 per open acre. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion.
Mr. Poisson moved to accept this Site Plan for St. Pierre, Inc. for final approval of the scale house. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion. With six members in favor, the motion carried.
There was discussion relative to including Mrs. Erisman as an abutter even though her property is across the street. She was included on the list of abutters notified of this application and it was agreed that she should recognized as an abutter.
Mr. Neill said the original application included a “Stop” sign on Jeffrey Road where the residential right-of-way joins the pit access road. Is a stop sign appropriate as it might create more problems than a Yield sign? Mr. Edkins noted that this is on private property so the Police do not have the authority to enforce either one legally. Tim St. Pierre indicated that the “Stop” sign was going to be for the residential road. Mr. Wilkins knew that it was not enforceable but it was proposed to clarify who has the right-of-way. Mr. Edkins felt that if there is an accident and there is a sign the Police Department can investigate and it can be dealt with but they cannot ticket someone disregarding the sign. Albert St. Pierre advised that they have been trucking in
and out of there for years and never had any problems. Mr. Wilkins added that the access onto Route 12A was submitted to the State for review but the proposed traffic is considered a “below threshold” road; in the future that could be changed.
Vote in favor of the motion: With six members in favor, the motion carried.
The Planning Board took a recess from 9:20 to 9:25 P.M.
SIGN PERMITS:
Dean Hill RV Center – Roger Chicoine/Mike Lemieux: Mr. Lemieux advised that this sign will be where the Dean Hill Motors sign was. The property will be converted to an RV sales and service facility. The new sign will be installed on the existing pedestal. It will be illuminated like the Saab sign was. There will be changeable text on the bottom – it is 48 square feet.
Mr. Neill moved to accept this Sign application for Dean Hill RV Center as presented. Mr. Carter seconded the motion.
Mrs. Fellows asked if the sign would be illuminated all night. Mr. Lemieux responded “yes”. Mrs. Francis said that in the past they have asked that internally illuminated signs be turned off at the end of business hours. Mr. Lemieux felt that if a business closes at 5:00 PM it would be nice to have the advertising on later. Mr. Frizzell suggested turning it off at 11:00 P.M.
Mr. Neill amended his motion to require that the sign be illuminated only from dusk to 11:00 P.M. Mr. Carter agreed to the amendment. With seven members in favor, the motion and amendment carried.
Stacy A. Toliver: This is a request from Stacy A. Toliver for a 46” x 20” sign with the height being 10’+/- from the ground. The property owner is Jim Bushway. Mr. Thibodeau suggested that this be sent back, as the sketch should be done to scale and indicate where it is situated on the building.
Mr. Thibodeau moved to send the application back to have the sign sketch done to scale. Mrs. Francis seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
PLANNING, POLICY & REGULATORY ISSUES:
Master Plan: Mr. Edkins reported that the UVLSRPC is waiting for him to complete the maps on the existing Land Use. He will try to have them done by the end of the week. The Build-Out study can then be completed and then we will move forward on the Visioning session.
Town Meeting Deliberative Session: The Town Meeting Deliberative Session is tomorrow night. Since the Planning Board didn’t support the Zoning issues it will be up to the Petitioners to present the articles.
ADMINISTRATION & CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no correspondence presented at this meeting.
There being no other business, Mrs. Francis moved for adjournment. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion and with seven members in favor, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Regina Borden, Recording Secretary Minutes Filed 2-12-04
(Note: These are unapproved minutes. Corrections, if necessary, may be found in the minutes of the February 17th, 2004, meeting.)
| 
