Public Present
Chip Haskell, Paul MacQuinn, Stephen Salsbury, Janet Leston Clifford,Erma Smallidge, Laurie Shencavitz, Gerald Shencavitz, Daniel Pileggi, Elizabeth S. Roberts, Antonio Blasi, Kelly O’Neil, Dianne H. Young, Douglas Hopkins, Ed Libinski, Ed Bearor, George Gilpin, Christine Breedlove, Jeanie Gilpin, and Jan Coates
Board Members Present
William Hanley, Acting Chairman; Lili Andrews, Acting Secretary; Dennis Kiley; and Meredith Randolph
Kim Keene, CEO; Claire Woolfolk, Recording Secretary; James Collier, Attorney for the Planning Board.
- The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by William Hanley.
- Public Hearing Continued from January 8, 2015:
- Quarrying License Permit #001-2014
OWNER(S): Harold MacQuinn, Inc.
OPERATOR(S): Fresh Water Stone & Brickwork, Inc.
AGENT(S): Steven Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Edmond J. Bearor, Rudman Winchell
LOCATION: Off Crane Road, Hall Quarry
TAX MAP(S): 007 LOT(S): 075 ZONES(S): Residential 2
PURPOSE: To conduct Public Hearing
No new conflicts of interest were reported; Chairman Brawley is still in conflict and has been recused. David Ashmore is out of town. Bill Hanley, Lili Andrews, Dennis Kiley, and Meredith Randolph are the voting members for this portion of the hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published February 19 and 26, 2015 in the Mount Desert Islander and that abutters were notified.
The board members present from the January 8, 2015 hearing signed the completeness review.
The Board agreed to try to adjourn the meeting by 9pm.
Chairman Hanley asked for opening statements.
For the Applicant: Ed Bearor, attorney for the applicant, stated that, as asked by the Board, a letter was written to the DEP requesting a written statement from the DEP as to whether their review is necessary. A response has not yet been received. Once it is received, it will be forwarded to the Board and to Mr. Pileggi, attorney for the opposition. Neither the applicant nor the opposition brought their noise experts to the hearing because both agreed that Section 6.2.J. Noise would be a time consuming discussion and that they did not expect to address it tonight. Mr. Bearor expects to get through Sections 6.2.D, E, and F, and further if time allows.
For the Opposition: Daniel Pileggi, opposing attorney, had no opening statement; he said he would address issues as they arose.
Public Comment:
Kelly O’Neil recently purchased a home in Hall Quarry and wouldn’t have bought the house had she known the issue with the quarry was going on.
James Collier, attorney for the Planning Board, stated the process for reviewing each section beginning with 6.2.D. First the Board would hear from the applicant, followed by the opposition, and then the public would be allowed to question or comment. After general comments from the public, the Board would close the hearing for public comment and review the section, have their discussion, and end with a vote. The process would continue as such through the end of the application checklist, section by section.
The Standards of Article 6 of the Quarrying License Ordinance, as enacted July 25, 2013 were reviewed as follows beginning with Section 6.2.D.:
6.2.D. –Closure and Reclamation Plans
Applicant: Chip Haskell of CES, reviewed the closure and reclamation plan.
Meredith Randolph asked to have clarification as to the nature of what would be left of the finished grade. Mr. Haskell said that he based their estimate of material on the finished grade. There would be a uniform slope with some areas of over 4” of fill on a 2% grade up to the wall. The walls could be as high as 10 – 20 feet, but in most places would be less than 10 feet.
Opposition: Mr. Pileggi had concerns and argued that the reclamation plan is inadequate and holds contradictions. He said he heard Mr. Salsbury state at an earlier hearing that there would never be more than one acre of active quarry, but the application says Phase I (2.2 acres) would be fully excavated and then reclaimed before moving on to Phase II. After Phase II is excavated, then it would get reclaimed. Tonight he heard Mr. Haskell state that Phase I will be reclaimed acre by acre before continuing to excavate further areas. What the applicant is saying and what is in the plan are two different things. The process outlined in the plan puts the applicant within Site Location Development law and DEP oversight. Statutory Legislative requirement of §5038 Section 490.Z, requires restoration of
the property “to a condition that is similar to or compatible with the conditions that existed before excavation.” Mr. Pileggi said that this is not what the presented reclamation plan says. The Town’s ordinance says that there is to be phased reclamation. Phased reclamation is not excavating 2.2 acres and reclaiming that and then excavating further. The Board has the power to require more frequent reclamation, which is what Mr. Salsbury suggested earlier and what they heard Mr. Haskell say tonight, but is NOT what is in the application. The plan needs to follow the ordinance, the statute, and the promises set forth by the applicant. The fencing safety issue (Section 6.2.D.3) stated in the ordinance specifically requires provisions for safety be made by the applicant. The plan is vague and broad and Mr. Pileggi asked the Board to make sure that the plan complies with the ordinance and statute requirements.
Public Comment
Chris Breedlove questioned who would be liable for any injuries incurred on the site by the public. Mr. Bearor said that there was no clear answer because the liable party would depend on the circumstances surrounding the incident (i.e. trespassing vs. invited party). The Town would not be held responsible.
Gerald Shencavitz questioned the 4” of loam with seed on top of a granite ledge having a chance of survival. Mr. Haskell responded that the 4” is per the ordinance and that it is the applicant’s responsibility to maintain it until the 75% area is vegetated with seeding after 1 (one) year in Phase I. Mr. Bearor declared that the 75% coverage area takes precedence over the 4”, so if more material is needed then more will be used.
Janet Clifford asked to be reminded of the acreage of Phase I (2.2 acres) and asked for confirmation that the first acre will be fully quarried and reclaimed before opening another area in Phase I in order to not involve the DEP and its requirements. Mr. Haskell said his understanding is that grown grass is not required before opening another portion of Phase I; that having it prepared and seeded meets the requirement in order to move on to another section.
Jan Coats, abutter, questioned the set back and asked to have it pointed out. She asked to define disturbed vs. quarried. Mr. Haskell said that disturbed means that the topsoil and trees have been removed.
Mr. Shencavitz commented that when the ordinance was drafted, citizens came to the conclusion that a quarry can’t be reclaimed. Rather it is a closure plan because the quarrying stops when water is hit and the area becomes filled with water. He talked about the Franklin Quarry situation where the quarry can’t be closed. There are deaths occurring due to kids wandering onto the property and swimming in the holes. He also noted that liability insurance is not available for closed quarries.
Mr. Haskell responded that this quarry is designed so that there will be no hole for water to collect. Water will leave the site and go to the abutting wetland area (owned by the Moores Lot 074-007). The calculations of the run-off after closing the site are that the flow will be less than it was prior to quarrying.
Dennis Kiley asked for confirmation that the quarrying would stop before hitting the water table and creating a natural well. Mr. Haskell confirmed that the intent is stop in advance of ground water in order to avoid the situation whereby pools of water collect in holes with 20’ walls.
Mr. Pileggi asked how the applicant would know when they are near the seasonal high water table. Mr. Haskell said that a geologist would have to answer that question.
Mr. Shencavitz said that at the first site visit they were told that the applicant would go down 70 feet or until they hit water.
Mr. Bearor said that the plan has been revised since ordinance has been drawn up.
Chairman Hanley said that the Board would be addressing ground water impacts under Section 6.2.H. at a later time.
Mr. Shencavitz said that the Board would need to come back to reclamation when discussing ground water impacts because he wanted to know how the applicant would reclaim a swimming hole. No one has been able to do that.
Ms. Clifford commented that it is the responsibility of the Board to make sure that the DEP definition of a quarry of more than 1 (one) acre is taken into account with all of the decisions. She said she heard the applicant say they are waiting for the letter to come from the DEP stating whether or not a DEP permit is needed. In her reading, the site location law defines the quarry area of 1 (one) acre as both reclaimed and unclaimed land, not just 1 (one) acre reclaimed and another area being quarried. She cautioned against giving approval before knowing that the definitions of the DEP standards and the ordinance are reconciled and whether this quarry meets the DEP standards of a 1 (one) acre quarry.
Mr. Bearor said the applicant will obtain the DEP permit if required, and that if DEP requirements are to be met, it is for the DEP to ensure and not this Board.
Mr. and Mrs. Shencavitz asked if the 1 (one) acre is actual excavation or if it includes other land in use at the site with trucks and stockpiling of the cut stone as part of the quarrying operation; they asked the applicant to please clarify how is one acre is defined for the operation. Mr. Haskell said it would depend on the DEP ruling. Mr. Shencavitz asked how this Board defined the 1 (one) acre. Mr. Haskell said it is not for this Board to decide; it is a DEP determination.
The Board referred to the ordinance, Section 6.2.A.5. where it is stated that the active extraction area shall not exceed three (3) acres and that the footprint of the entire operation not exceed a total of 5 (five) acres. The 1 (one) acre is a DEP threshold. Chairman Hanley read aloud from the ordinance the definition of Active Extraction Area:
Active Extraction Area.~ The quarry itself, the actual hole in the ground, including side slopes and adjoining areas with overburden removed, excluding roads, structures, stockpiles, etc., which is being worked to produce stone and/or that is yet to be reclaimed.~
Ms. Randolph said that her interpretation of this definition would be that any place where the topsoil/trees have been disturbed or removed would count as part of the active extraction area. Ms. Andrews said it would depend on the DEP’s definition.
Ms. Clifford asked if all of the active extraction area was measured right now (meaning the hole in the ground, side slopes, and the adjoining area where overburden has been removed), what would the acreage be? The applicant said that right now it would be 1.1 acres as surveyed by the applicant, which the DEP grandfathered.
George Gilpin asked that if the Board grandfathered the quarry based on the moving extracted stone around, then wouldn’t it follow that the staging area be included in the one acre of active quarrying?
Public comment closed. The Board discussed 6.2.D.
A MOTION TO APPROVE SECTION 6.2.D. CLOSURE AND RECLAMATION PLAN SUBJECT TO THERE BEING NO MORE THAN ONE ACRE OF ACTIVE EXTRACTION, MAPS THAT CLEARLY DELINEATE THE ONE ACRE PLOTS OF EXTRACTION IN BOTH PHASE I AND PHASE II, RECLAMATION OF THE PREVIOUS ACRE MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ACRE, SAFETY MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE SUCH THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE THAN 10 FEET OF EXPOSED VERTICAL FACE, AND THAT IT WILL BE GRADED AT A 1:1 SLOPE WAS MADE BY MR. KILEY; SECONDED BY MS. RANDOLPH.
Discussion continued.
Motion made to approve SECTION 6.2.D. CLOSURE AND RECLAMATION PLAN AND ITS CONDITIONS was withdrawn BY MR. KILEY.
The Board asked the applicant for a revised reclamation plan to address the active one acre plots and the plan for extraction acre by acre, and that the plan indicate no more than a 10’ sheer drop with the base to be graded with a 1:1 slope.
Motion to skip over this section and to take a 10 minute recess WAS MADE BY MR. KILEY; SECONDED BY MS. ANDREWS.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0)
Meeting was called back to order at 7:59 p.m.
Chairman Hanley suggested that the Board take sections out of order and address less controversial sections for the reminder of the night: E- Petroleum Usage, G-Road and Driveway Design, I-Signs, K-Hours of Operation, L-Dust Control, and N-Lighting.
6.2.E. – Petroleum Usage:
For the Applicant: Mr. Haskell reviewed the plan for dealing with potential petroleum spills.
For the Opposition: Mr. Pileggi asked that the Board consider adding to the spill and control plan: 1) requirement that the applicant protects the area and equipment from vandalism, and 2) refueling to happen at a discreet area on an impervious surface to minimize the risk of a spill.
Public comment
Ms. Clifford asked how the equipment would be refueled and if the source of the fuel is not stored on-site how would it get to the site? Mr. Haskell said that a fuel truck would come each day and that it would not remain overnight.
Public comment closed. The Board discussed 6.2.E.
A MOTION TO APPROVE SECTIN 6.2.E. PETROLEUM USAGE SUBJECT TO THE REMOVAL OF THE PETROLEUM FUELING TRUCK EACH NIGHT AND THAT THERE BE A DEDICATED AREA FOR REFUELING WITH A FUEL PAD WAS MADE BY MR. KILEY; SECONDED BY MS. RANDOLPH.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0)
6.2.G. - Road and Driveway Design
For the Applicant: Mr. Salsbury reviewed pg. 16 of the application regarding traffic estimates and the design of the travel surfaces.
For the Opposition: Mr. Pileggi had nothing to add.
Public Comment
Ms. Clifford wanted confirmation that quarry access would be from Crane Road to Hall Quarry Road. She asked that the Board suggest that the applicant consult with the Public Works Director to determine if the applicant would be required to construct a paved apron as outlined in section 6.2.G.3. where Crane Road meets Hall Quarry Road.
Public comment closed. The Board discussed 6.2.G.
A MOTION TO APPROVE SECTION 6.2.G. ROAD AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN SUBJECT TO ADDING THE APRON SHOULD THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RECOMMEND ONE WAS MADE BY MS. RANDOLPH; SECONDED BY MR. KILEY.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0)
6.2.I. – Signs
For the Applicant: Mr. Salsbury described the signage proposed and postings on the property, pg. 15 of application.
For the Opposition: Mr. Pileggi suggested that the Board consider, for public safety issues, perimeter signage be posted for “No Trespassing” and warning the public to stay away.
No Public Comment regarding signage.
Public comment closed. The Board discussed 6.2.I.
A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT THE STANDARD OF Section 6.2.I. SIGNS HAVE BEEN MET SUBJECT TO A SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE QUARRY STATING DANGEROUS CONDITIONS, A SIGN BY THE REFUELING STATION, AND THE POSTING OF “NO TRESPASSING” QUARRY WARNING SIGNS EVERY 50’ AROUND THE PEREMETER WAS MADE BY MR. KILEY; SECONDED BY MS. RANDOLPH.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0)
6.2.K. – Hours of Operation
For the Applicant: Mr. Salsbury reviewed pg. 14 of the application and stated the proposed hours would be 7am-4pm, Monday through Saturday, with drilling not to start prior to 8 am.
For the Opposition: Mr. Pileggi referred to the hours stated in the ordinance and said that those hours are unreasonable in a residential area. Blasting and drilling in a residential area at 7am is unreasonable and not in character with the zoning area. He suggested the board impose more stringent restrictions on the hours of operation and what activities can take place when.
Mr. Bearor pointed out that the hours are stated in the ordinance and are not subject to being revised by the Planning Board.
Mr. Collier said that the ordinance is poorly written and that he does not agree that the Board cannot restrict the hours; the intent of the wording is that the Board cannot expand the hours.
Mr. Bearor objected to the further restriction of the hours saying that “revise” does not only refer to the expansion of hours.
Public Comment
Ms. Clifford asked if the emergency modifies the maintenance, repair, or both in regards to the equipment. The Board agreed that the ordinance referred to the emergency maintenance and/or emergency repair and not regular maintenance or repair.
Ms. Clifford also stated that this entire operation is completely incompatible with a residential area. People work out of their homes and the noise will be disruptive to their livelihood.
Ms. Shencavitz said that for someone who is ill or confined to their home the noise is extremely disruptive.
Ms.Breedlove and Ms.Coates stated that weekends are considered precious time to people who are working a regular work week. Homes are sanctuaries and to have the noise the quarry makes when you are trying to sleep in on a Saturday morning or to work in the yard/garden is an intrusion.
Mr. Shencavitz agreed that the workweek hours are reasonable for people who are away at work during the week. However, these hours are not reasonable for someone who doesn’t work regular business hours (i.e. working nightshift) and needing to sleep or rest in the morning.
Public comment closed. The Board discussed 6.2.K.
A MOTION TO APPROVE SECTION 6.2.K. HOURS OF OPERATION SUBJECT TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION BE 7AM – 4PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND WITH NO DRILLING BEFORE 8AM WAS MADE BY MS. ANDREWS; SECONDED BY MS. RANDOLPH.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED. (3-1, KILEY OPPOSED)
6.2.L. – Dust Control
Dust control was skipped over since Mr. Pileggi said he would have comments that would most likely take the hearing beyond the agreed upon 9pm ending time for the evening.
6.2.N. - Lighting
For the Applicant: Mr. Salsbury reviewed pg. 15 of the application and said there is to be no artificial lighting at the site. The hours of operation are during daylight hours only.
For the Opposition: Mr. Pileggi had nothing to add.
No Public Comment regarding lighting.
Public comment closed. The Board discussed 6.2.N.
A MOTION TO FIND THAT SECTION 6.2.N. LIGHTING IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE IN THE DAYLIGHT WAS MADE BY MR. KILEY; SECONDED BY MS. RANDOLPH.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0)
A MOTION TO continue the meeting oN a date approved oF by the interested parties WAS MADE BY MR. KILEY; SECONDED BY MS. RANDOLPH.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0)
III. A MOTION TO ADJOURN WAS MADE BY MR. KILEY; SECONDED BY MS. RANDOLPH.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0)
Meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 11, 2015 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
| 
