MINUTES
CHARLESTOWN PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 17, 2004
Members Present: Sharon Francis – Vice-Chair; Steven Neill, Ex-Officio, Robert Beaudry, David Carter
Alternates Present: 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 Chairman Jesse St. Pierre and regular members Robert Frizzell and David Sussman. She called upon alternate members Roger Thibodeau and Gail Fellows to sit in for David Sussman and Robert Frizzell respectively. Alternate member Fred Poisson was also absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2004:
Gail Fellows moved to approve the minutes of the February 3, 2004, meeting as printed. Roger Thibodeau seconded the motion. With six members in favor, the motion carried.
STACY TOLIVER – Sign Permit – 187 Main Street – Map 31, Lot 41 – Zone B (Business): Mrs. Francis advised that this Sign Permit application was reviewed at the last meeting but the Planning Board asked to have it drawn up more formally. The sign will be located on the front of the building where the bicycle shop was. Mr. Edkins said Mrs. Toliver would also like to put a sign on the side of the building but that wouldn’t be permitted. This sign will be on the gable over-hang on the front of the building and copies of the actual sign were included in the packets. It will be 46” x 20” – the same dimensions as the old sign and will be in the same location.
Mr. Beaudry moved to grant approval for the one sign on the front of the building where the former sign was. Mrs. Fellows seconded the motion. With five members in favor, the motion carried. Mr. Thibodeau abstained, as the application doesn’t show exactly where the sign will be located.
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 explained that just before the last meeting the revised engineering plan showing the water line connection was delivered to his office at about 5:00 PM so the Planning Board tabled the application to provide time for the Public Works Superintendent to review the revised plans. There was also a question as to whether or not it was feasible to connect this subdivision to the Town’s sewer line. Since that meeting, the Public Works Director has had an opportunity to review the plans for the water line connection and feels they are more than adequate. The
applicants’ engineer did go back again to look at whether or not it would be possible to connect these lots to the Town sewer system by gravity and concluded that connection is not feasible in any of the three possible locations without installing a pump station. This would be prohibitively expensive for the number of lots proposed and would also add an additional maintenance burden on the Town’s Public Works Department. Mr. Duquette has affirmed that the proposed on-site septic systems are preferable in this case. Mr. Edkins feels that the issues that were raised at the last meeting have been addressed. Mr. Duquette is more than satisfied with the plans and would prefer that there not be a pump station as it would be one more location for him to take care of. Surveyor Robert Palmer confirmed that the plans remain the same as presented. There will be three residential lots and two industrial lots.
Mr. Thibodeau moved to grant final approval of this five-lot subdivision for Joseph & Patricia Pickul and JETTCO Group. Mr. Neill seconded the motion. With six members in favor, the motion carried.
ST. PIERRE, INC. (Cont’d) – Review & Sign Final Excavation Permit – 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 reported that St. Pierre, Inc. received final approval at the last meeting but last week the Planning Board received a “Request for Rehearing” that was signed by Priscilla J. Erisman, James U. McClammer, Jr., Steven J. Snelling, Katie Lajoie, John Lajoie, and Sharon A. Morisi. It states that “since this is a very large project and the Planning Board has not reasonably evaluated potential impacts or alternatives to minimize these impacts, and the application does not comply with requirements of RSA 155E and RSA 36, they request a rehearing.” Mr. Edkins prepared a memo titled “Suggested Response to Request for Rehearing” that was distributed at this meeting. The Planning Board reviewed the memo. Mrs. Francis thanked Mr. Edkins for taking the time to do this research for the Board. If
the Board determines that the request contains valid reasons to rehear the project they will schedule a rehearing. Tonight’s meeting is not a hearing. This is not the time to argue the merits of the various issues. Mr. Edkins noted that the applicant also prepared a response to the request for a Rehearing and that should be recognized by the Board and given some consideration. Mr. Wilkins distributed his “Response to Request for Rehearing” but noted that he has nothing else to add as Mr. Edkins summary has addressed the issues. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Neill moved that the request for rehearing be denied on the grounds that it fails to specify any valid reason to conclude that the original decision to approve the Excavation Permit was in any way unlawful or unreasonable. Mr. Carter seconded the motion.
Mr. Thibodeau felt that Mr. Edkins answered all of the issues that were brought up. Mr. Edkins felt that the Planning Board in their deliberations did in fact address all of the items included in the statute. The Board did a good job and the applicants did what was expected and required of them.
Mrs. Francis said that on the question of the excavation causing a diminution in property values and unreasonably change the character of the neighborhood Mr. Edkins pointed out that that such language is only applicable when the Zoning Board of Adjustment must consider a special exception in cases where local zoning does not provide an opportunity for excavation of earth resources anywhere in the community”. He noted a section on prohibited projects in the statutes. In this case the excavation of earth resources is specifically listed as a permitted use in Zone G-2, hence a special exception is not necessary and these conditions are not applicable.
Mr. Beaudry moved to move the question. With five members in favor, the motion carried.
Vote on the motion: With five members in favor, the motion carried.
Mrs. Francis announced that the Request for a Rehearing is denied. It was noted that James McClammer, Jr. and Sharon Morisi were the only signers of the Request that were present.
Mr. Edkins explained that this brings us back to the original agenda item to “Review & Sign Final Excavation Permit – Jeffrey Road – Map 6, Lots 6 & 23 – Zone G-2 (Multi-Use)”. A copy of the Excavation Permit #EX-01-2004 had been provided to Mr. Wilkins prior to this meeting. Mrs. Francis read the conditions listed on the Notice of Action, dated February 13, 2004. Mr. Edkins pointed out that the Excavation Permit goes beyond this and includes statutory requirements, hours of operation, etc.
The one issue that the Board might want to consider is Item No. 21 – “All work on the site shall conform to the terms and conditions of any and all required permits or approvals issued by the NH Department of Environmental Services”. There is a Federal Storm Water Permit that also is applicable in this case. Does the Board want to add this? Mrs. Francis asked what the timetable is for approval of permits? Mr. Wilkins advised that the Federal Permit is fairly quick as it is done through electronic filing and should be processed within thirty days; the Site Specific usually is processed within sixty days.
Mr. Wilkins wanted to address No. 15 – “Excavation and vegetative debris resulting from the excavation shall be removed or otherwise lawfully disposed of”. The type of organic material is stumps and topsoil as the result of excavation and it does involve the turning of composted organic material to make mulch & topsoil. This is still happening as it has for many years. It won’t be removed from the site but rather allowed to sit there to decay and process. Some of it will be used on-site for reclamation. Mr. Edkins explained that the vegetative debris is actually a quote from one of the reclamation standards and the intent is that when the site is reclaimed and/or closed that the material is taken care of and not just left there.
Mr. Wilkins addressed No. 4 – “No excavation shall be permitted below road level within 50 feet of the right-of-way of any public highway as defined in RSA 229:1.” The excavation near the Jeffrey Road – the Jeffrey Road will be relocated. The excavation would occur closer than 50 feet to the current Jeffrey Road but that would be restored. Mr. Edkins felt that is construction activity rather than excavation work – it is construction of a road. Mr. Beaudry questioned that the pit work will comply within the dimensions given here. Mr. Wilkins responded “yes”.
Mr. Thibodeau noted that No. 13, the first sentence should be corrected – change “or” to “of”.
Mr. McClammer addressed No. 7 – “Berms and vegetation shall be maintained or provided within the peripheral areas as shown on the approved plan. The Planning Board retains the option to review the berm and buffer issues every five (5) years if requested by abutters.” Mr. McClammer asked if the Board’s interpretation of vegetation is grass as opposed to trees. Mr. Edkins responded that there is no definition in the statutes – this mirrors the language in the statutes. Mrs. Francis added that the application includes trees on the berms. Mr. Edkins noted that the Notice of Decision includes a provision that concludes “this approval is based on the plans and written descriptions submitted with the application as well as the verbal representations made by
the applicants and their agents”. It references the record in terms of what needs to be done on the site. Mrs. Francis said the Board doesn’t want to single out trees but vegetation includes trees. Tim St. Pierre feels this is covered under No. 12. Mr. Beaudry noted that the Excavation Permit states “Violation of any condition of this permit may result in revocation of the permit by the regulator”.
Mr. McClammer questioned enforcement. Mr. Edkins said the Planning Board is the regulator under the statute and does have enforcement authority.
Mr. Edkins will modify No. 12 to make it more general rather than specific items. Mrs. Francis felt that would tie it back to what the Board approved. Mr. McClammer asked how one of these items would be dealt with if there was a violation – for example dust. It should be spelled out in the permit. Mr. Edkins responded that the applicants are obligated to control dust on their site and if they fail to do that the Planning Board has the authority for enforcement. Tim St. Pierre said the Mine Safety and Health does inspections for dust and noise. Mrs. Fellows said that is a recourse for the Planning Board. Mrs. Francis asked Tim St. Pierre if they have had complaints? Tim St. Pierre responded that they have not had complaints about dust other than here. Mr.
McClammer expressed concern about dust on the roadway entrance; their concern is the drinking water protection. Mr. Wilkins said the testimony they gave was that they would use water rather than calcium chloride and it will minimize the spreading of dust. Mr. Thibodeau noted that the controlling of dust isn’t up to the Planning Board; the Board doesn’t make policy on that.
Mrs. Francis advised that the Board would not approve this document tonight as they are making some modifications. Mr. Edkins added that before the Permit can be issued there is also the posting of the Bond and the $50.00 excavation permit fee. Mr. Edkins will make the changes, add the Federal Permits to No. 13 and that the Board will wait until the state and federal permits are obtained before actually signing and issuing the Excavation Permit.
Mr. Thibodeau moved to approve the Excavation Permit as modified tonight and that it will be issued when the state and federal permits as well as the required bonding are in place. Mr. Beaudry seconded the motion. With five members in favor, the motion carried.
The Planning Board took a recess from 7:58 to 8:04 P.M.
PLANNING, POLICY & REGULATORY ISSUES:
Master Plan: Mr. Edkins has provided the Land Use map information to the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission so we should be ready for the Build-out study soon and then the Visioning process can begin.
Town Meeting: There are two proposed Petition Amendments on the Ballot in March. A protest Petition was received on the zoning change from the property owners in the area that would be affected by that change so it will require a two-third vote to pass.
The proposed budget includes $10,000 to continue work on the Master Plan next year. Mr. Beaudry went back to the Finance Committee on the revaluation article and, based on additional information, there is now positive support from the committee. If this is not done we could jeopardize the money that is received from the state.
ADMINISTRATION & CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr. Edkins reviewed the correspondence with the Planning Board:
· A copy of a letter from the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission, in cooperation with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES), to Mr. Richard Holmes, Charlestown Conservation Commission, was received asking for their help in an effort to verify and update the Local Resource Protection Priorities (LRPP), GIS layer.
· The RPC Newsletter from the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission, Winter 2003/2004.
· A post card was received from the NH Office Energy and Planning announcing that the 11th Annual Spring Planning & Zoning Conference will be held on Saturday, May 8, 2004, at the Center of New Hampshire in Manchester.
· A letter to Connecticut River Byway Partners from the Town of Rockingham asking the Town to help them promote this community as part of the Byway. They are looking for a local brochure that highlights dining, lodging, cultural heritage attractions, and downtowns and village centers in the region of our local town. Mr. Edkins advised that Pat Royce will contact the people that should be included.
· A brochure was received from Lorman Education Services regarding a one-day seminar on “Law of Easements: Legal Issues And Practical Considerations In New Hampshire” to be held on Manchester, NH on April 20, 2004.
· Received a notice from the Sullivan Superior Court that the initial hearing on the Morningside Flight Park appeal is scheduled for March 17, 2004 at 9:00 am.
· A newsletter of the NHDES Drinking Water Source Protection Program, Winter 2004 edition, “The Source”.
· Several copies of the “Nonpoint Source Pollution” booklet, dated January 2004, were received from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and were distributed to Planning Board members.
There being no other business, Mr. Thibodeau moved for adjournment. Mr. Neill seconded the motion and with six members in favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:18 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Regina Borden, Recording Secretary Minutes Filed 2-20-04
(Note: These are unapproved minutes. Corrections, if necessary, may be found in the minutes of the March 2, 2004, meeting.)
| 
