TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
05/17/05
Approved 06/21/05
Lull Road Corp, application for “Special Exception” to operate a gravel pit, map/lot 3/5, this is a continued hearing from 04/19/05.
Board members present: Chairman David Craig, Vice Chairman Harry Piper, Bob Todd, Ed DiPietro, Greg Mattison, Phil Consolini, Laura Todd, clerk.
Chairman Craig opened the continued hearing @ 7:03 PM, explaining that this was a continued hearing from April 19th., the board would continue to deliberate the motion that had been made and tabled, while legal council had been sought. He then asked Bob if we had received any guidance from Atty. Drescher.
Bob Todd said he had received a telephone call this afternoon from Atty. Drescher with a non-binding opinion with respect to our questions. Atty. Drescher had only had an hour to review what the board had sent to him. He did say that RSA 674:21A would come into play if the ZBA put the conditions as shown on the plan and they would run with the application and with the land even with no deed as described in RSA 477:45. Bob read RSA 674:21A and 477:45 to the board (copies are attached to the minutes). Bob then said that Atty. Drescher was in support of the conditions, stating they were defensible and he advised how to make them stronger.
Chairman Craig asked if Drescher had addressed if the condition #1, would continue into subdivision, and run with the land, saying that was the key issue.
Bob said Atty. Drescher did not address that issue.
Harry Piper said he thought that the statute would have exclusionary terminology if it didn’t run with the land.
Discussion continued between D. Craig and H. Piper as to whether a condition would run with the land.
Bob Todd said if this motion is successful, the Planning Board would have precedent and this would make it easier to substantiate it. This board is encouraged to make conditions on “Special Exception” and the Planning Board is not necessarily encouraged to put on restrictions.
Bob Todd moved to take the motion from the table to deliberate on the motion, 2nd by Greg Mattison, passed by the board.
Ed DiPietro is not a voting member, but was encouraged to be part of the discussion
Chairman Craig, asked Bob to speak to the motion and then asked to review the map again.
Bob said the motion was to grant the special exception with the two conditions. The first condition is the area shown in red on the plan not be excavated. The second condition, the area shown on the plan be reforested and that it be part of the requirement for site plan. Bob then spoke of other conditions that board members had talked about at the previous hearing. These three additional conditions are attached to the minutes. The first regarding access, 2nd regarding water quality monitoring, and 3rd volumetric survey of material.
Harry was concerned that the first of these three additional conditions needed to be more specific. Bob said if it was voted in the Planning Board could make an evaluation of the access point with a site inspection. They would be better equipped. Harry wanted it tied into the condition that it had to be approved by the Planning Board. Ed then questioned how the third condition would be done, as the land would be disrupted. Bob said it would be critical that the original survey would be provided to the surveyor that would do the volume measurement.
Bob moved to amend and add the three additional conditions and did so one at a time, each condition was 2nd by Greg and passed by the board.
There was discussion on the volume condition amount, with it decided that we would not put in an amount.
Dave said there is a motion on the table with five conditions.
Bob said in respect to the criteria for granting a special exception, Criteria #3, Traffic on road and immediate vicinity. The condition that restricts the access onto Twin Bridge Road addresses that criterion. The state highway was outside of our jurisdiction and was built for commerce. Criteria # 1 is not relevant. Criteria #3, which addresses the character of the area, is the big one. Obviously, the river, the river corridor, the character of the river, the beauty of the river, the recreation of the river, and the enjoyment of future generations of the river, is the essential character of the area. It has been testified that a major portion on this river corridor has been preserved. We have the opportunity to bring a little protection, it may not be foolproof, if we don’t it may preclude any other way to protect it. The replanting, in 5 to 10 years will take up what is now run off. With water monitoring, we can notify DES if there is a problem. We can help maintain
a wildlife corridor. New Boston has long history, back to the 1930’s, with the greenway along Rte 13, then the PWA in 1970’s protecting the mainstream of the river. The applicant has a right to use his land and that is an important principle in our life.
Ed was very concerned about the traffic and the concentration of trucks and the fact that people would have to live with them. The number of truck going through the towns of New Boston, Mont Vernon and Milford. He could not dismiss the effect on the state highways; he felt that SNHPC should say something about it. He was confused about the setbacks, the rules regarding the logging, and whether there was a problem with the logging. Questioned whether we trusted the Planning Board to handle the subdivision.
Bob said there is no mistrust of the Planning Board, it is just they have one procedure and we have another. The history is they have not put very many environmental conditions on subdivision approval.
Harry asked if any other project has had this much adverse attention not only from New Boston, but also from Weare and Goffstown. He wondered if they (the Planning Board) might use the regulations they have available to them. If we could somehow determine that this gravel pit was not detrimental to the immediate area, then all the trucks coming through downtown definitely will be detrimental to that area. He felt that it was definitely detrimental to the immediate area. The master plan requires all land planning boards seek the advice and council from the type of groups like the PWA and PWA Local River Advisor Committee before they take action on any project that reflects on any ecologically sensitive areas. We have done that, and they have said that this is not something that should be allowed in this
area. I will not be supporting the motion.
Bob said he would not vote for this either if he was not sure that the conditions would work.
There was some discussion regarding another gravel operation that was approved by this board recently. It was adjacent to another pit already located in a residential area, not near a river and had no opposition from abutters.
Harry said this gravel operation would still detrimentally change the area.
Dave Craig spent time with subdivision regulation and it was clear to him that the Planning Board did have tool to ask for buffers. It was not clear to him that restriction such as these would bind future landowners, after the gravel operation was complete and a subdivision was proposed. The reforestation is not very convincing to him, would like to see it happen, but picture small white pine and hemlock that would take a great many years to be substantial. During the interim, there will be a detrimental impact on the river. Also spent some time on the master plan, on page 10 and 11 it says the character of the river should be preserved. Strongly persuaded by the testimony that on 06/27/2000 Piscataguog River Management Plan became part of the master plan. Even with the condition that have been
stated, it is still in violation of criteria that we must approve. The character of the area will be adversely effected, he will not support the motion.
Greg asked what is meant by the area.
Chairman Craig answered the general area surrounding, the state forest, the river. Harry stated that the area is anything you can see, smell, or hear.
Bob had a counterpoint to one of Chairman Craig statements, the chance of a conservation restriction being put by the wayside by another use is a possibility, but probably 2, 3 or 5 years away. This gives us (meaning the whole community) an opportunity to negotiate buying an easement, or the land, from whoever the owner is at the time. We do not have time, unless we deny it and that doesn’t stop the process. All of us recognize what the next process will be. This will give us protection during the gravel operation and give us time to pursue a permanent easement.
Greg believes the motion is proactive and not reactive.
Phil asked if we vote no, what will happen.
Chairman Craig said a special exception for a gravel operation is before us, they can go ahead and subdivide if we deny.
Discussion followed regarding voting this down, would we re-vote.
Chairman Craig said we would do what we had done historically; if it is voted down, it will stick.
Greg asked for additional conditions that would make it clear the applicant would pay for any additional charges.
Bob said that is an established procedure.
Chairman Craig called for the vote. All in favor, Bob Todd and Greg Mattison. All those against, Chairman Craig, Harry Piper and Phil Consolini, The motion failed
Bob Todd made a motion to adjourn the hearing @ 8:25, 2nd by Dave, meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
Laura Todd
05/20/05
| 
