CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
Case #212-Chuckster’s LLC, Mark Blasko & Chuck Breton, Map 2 Lot 81, requesting an Area Variance to Article III, Section P.4. to permit construction of a go-cart track within wetland buffer and pedestrian walkway crossing wetland to access track area. Property is located on Route 4 & Bailey Road. Anthony Costello, A.C. Engineering & Consulting, will be representing the applicant.
Members Present: Edward Meehan, Chairman; David Dobson; Stephen MacCleery, ex-offico; Mark McIntosh; Richard Millette. (All voting)
Sixteen abutters and interested citizens were also present.
Applicants wish to cross existing wetlands from the existing Chuckster’s site so a go-cart race track can be constructed in the buildable area of remaining land. Work will need to be done within the wetland buffer. They met with the Conservation Commission two days prior to this public hearing at which time concerns were raised about a major high quality value wetland located on the property. A site walk has been scheduled with the CC for Monday, Nov. 19th at 4PM. If it is determined that there is indeed a high value wetland in the area that is proposed for the track, they would be willing to relocate it to stay out of the buffer.
Mr. Costello feels that if the criteria are met for the Wetland Ordinance P. 6. a-d, a variance would not be needed for the access part of the project. As far as the development is concerned they feel they meet the intent of the ordinance as far as protecting the wetlands. The proposed project will not allow any runoff in the race track area to go directly into the buffer or the wetland. Water will be drained into the interior of the site and treated in an underground filtration system. Gas and/or oil separators will also be installed. A dense vegetative screen is also being proposed to screen the race track from the wetland. They would be working in conjunction with the CC & DES pertaining to plantings. Plantings could go as far as to the wetlands. There are mostly
saplings present at this time. A report was submitted from Christopher Danforth, Environmental Consulting, pertaining to the wetlands. (On file)
The track surface will be asphalt but a porous surface could be looked at. Spill prevention issues will be looked at. Fueling area will be outside the buffer area. Minimum DES impact is less than 3,000 sq. ft. and this project is approx. 4,000 sq. ft. The proposed roadway access will be gravel with a culvert.
Leslie Walker, abutter, feels the applicant needs a variance for both the access and for the track itself. She feels that the proposed use will diminish surrounding property values and that the noise, gas spills and exhaust fumes need to be taken into account. Since the development of a project up the road and the building of Chuckster’s this year they have noticed a considerable change in the water flow and are concerned with the environmental issue.
Bob Mann, Conservation Commission, confirmed that they had met with the applicant earlier in the week. This proposed project is the second phase of the Chuckster’s development. At the time of the first phase the CC stated that they would have concerns with the impact to the high quality wetlands if the project did expand. They will be walking the property next week to determine the actual impact.
Diane Stevens, abutter, stated that the brook which runs down Bailey Road is seasonal. It runs across her backyard and driveway in the summer time more than it ever has in the past. She feels that Chuckster’s has a thriving business now and it wouldn’t be a hardship to them if this project didn’t happen.
Ewen MacKinnon mentioned concerns with parking for existing business on Bailey Road, noise level of proposed project and major flooding issues in the area.
Other abutters felt that they would all feel the impact from this project with regards to the wetlands, noise, diminishing property values, and concerns with oil and gas getting into the water supply.
It was explained to those present that the applicant was before the BOA to obtain a variance to gain access to the proposed track area and to construct a portion of the track within the wetland buffer. All other concerns mentioned were Planning Board issues and should be addressed at their meeting with the applicant. Also, if anyone felt that the PB made a decision incorrectly, pertaining to the zoning, they could appeal that decision to the BOA.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The board felt that they would like to get more information from the Conservation Commission after their site walk.
There is still a question as to whether a wetland crossing variance is needed. They would have preferred to have the Planning Board’s opinion as to which variances they would be requiring of the applicant.
The runoff of the area seems to be a valid concern.
Pertaining to Article III, Section P. 6.a. the board would like legal opinion.
MOTION
Mark McIntosh moved to continue this public hearing until Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM so more information may be obtained from the Conservation Commission and their site walk; and legal council can be contacted pertaining to Article III, Section P. 6.a. Seconded by David Dobson.
VOTE ON MOTION
David Dobson – Yes
Ed Meehan – Yes
Steve MacCleery – Yes
Mark McIntosh – Yes
Richard Millette – Yes
Motion carries 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Edward Meehan, Chairman
| 
