JANUARY 19, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD FEBRUARY 2, 2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Ms. Kay Kyle
Mr. Jon Caron, Selectmen Representative Mr. Rolfe Voltaire
Mr. Peter Gylfphe Ms. Judi Thibault, Alternate
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Bill Booth, Alternate
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Recording Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
The Chair asked Mr. Booth to sit for Ms. Kyle and Mr. Curry to sit for Mr. Voltaire.
PUBLIC HEARING-GATCHELL:
Mr. Smith read a letter on behalf of Gatchell asking for a recess.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the Gatchell public hearing until February 2, 2005 at 7:00pm. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Booth, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Caron, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
BUILDING INSPECTOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
At 7:10pm the Chair called to order the discussion of the recommendations from the Building Inspector.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept article #2 as written. Mr. Curry seconded that motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Caron, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Caron made a motion to accept article #3 as the state required. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Caron, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Caron said that the Planning Board would hold a public hearing on these articles after they accepted them.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept article #4. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Caron, Mr. Curry, and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Smith read article #5 out loud to the Board. Mr. Caron said that he would like to change it to state that "fees for building permits and inspections shall be set by the Nottingham Board of Selectmen."
Mr. Caron made a motion to adopt article #5 as amended. Mr. Seaverns seconded the motion. Mr. Caron, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Curry, and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Voltaire arrived at this point.
Ms. Bonser said that the town residents would like to see a change in the square footage required for a building to need a building permit. She said that she would like the Planning Board to look at increasing that amount. Mr. Seaverns said that building permits were so that the town could tax structures. He said that the size building to be taxed should be defined by the tax agency. Mr. Curry said that from the homeowners perspective the building permits were not just for taxes. Ms. Bonser said that no one was trying to get around taxes. She said that people were not supposed to have a bunch of junk on their property. She said that they wanted to go the store and buy a shed to put the stuff in and they did not want to have to get a building permit for it.
Mr. Voltaire made a motion to raise the square footage required for a building to need a building permit to 145 square feet. Mr. Booth seconded the motion.
Mr. Caron said that any structure that large could possibly have a foundation. Mr. Seaverns said that the Planning Board could not change the number they chose once they had the public hearing. Mr. Curry wondered if it would be a good idea to specify that these buildings were non moveable structures. Mr. Seaverns said no.
Mr. Booth, Mr. Voltaire, Mr. Gylfphe, and Mr. Smith voted in favor of the motion to raise the required square footage for a building to need a permit to 145 square feet. Mr. Seaverns and Mr. Caron voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-2.
Mr. Caron made a motion to hold a public hearing on all the articles the Planning Board had discussed on February 2, 2005 at 7:05pm. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. Mr. Caron, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth, Mr. Seaverns, and Mr. Voltaire voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- NELSON:
At 7:35pm the Chair opened the public hearing on the Nelson proposed 2 lot subdivision.
The Chair asked Mr. Curry to sit in for Mr. Rourke.
Others Present: Mr. Pete Landry, Mr. Rod Nelson, Ms. Julie Nelson and Mr. Dan Regan
Mr. Landry said that the Nelsons wanted to subdivide 2.25 acres of land from Mr. Regan. He explained that the deed did not match the tax map but he said that they wanted to take 2.25 acres from 20 acres. He said that there would be low impact. He said that they had been granted a state subdivision permit on the 13th. He said that they had 2 driveways and the Building Inspector had approved 2 driveway permits for them. He said that they also had a request for waivers of the remaining land.
Mr. Caron made a motion to accept the topography and cistern waivers for Tax Map #16 Lot #27. Mr. Voltaire seconded the motion. Mr. Caron, Mr. Voltaire, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Seaverns, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Landry explained the plans and talked about nonconforming existing streets. He said that there was 200ft of frontage and the setbacks and dwellings were shown in the plans. He said that they had not been able to use granite bounds because they had run into boulders and a tree at 3 of the corners of the property. He also said that they had not been able to get a 911# from the town office. Ms. Seaverns said that the town office could not assign 911#'s when the Planning Board had not seen the plans. Mr. Smith read the letter from the Fire Department regarding this plan out loud. He also read out loud the request for a waiver from having a cistern and a sprinkler system. Mr. Seaverns pointed out that there would not be a dwelling on either parcel of subdivided land. Mr. Smith said that he did
not see development potential here. Mr. Seaverns said that the waiver request had too much information. Mr. Gylfphe said that savings in homeowners insurance would pay for a sprinkler system in 5 years. Mr. Seaverns said that when a house was eventually built on the property there might be a requirement that it have a sprinkler system. Mr. Curry suggested that the waiver request could be revised. Mr. Seaverns said that he thought the waiver request should end after the first sentence. He said that the Fire Department said buildings should be sprinkled. Mr. Voltaire said that was simply a recommendation. He asked how a building inspector could enforce a recommendation. Mr. Seaverns said that the Building Inspector could not enforce it unless it was a condition on the plan. Mr. Voltaire said that he did not want to burden the Building Inspector with something that was not enforceable. Mr. Seaverns said that he did not
want to say they didn't have to have sprinklers and than have sprinklers become a part of the building code. Mr. Teague said that there was no ideal way of doing this waiver request. Mr. Smith said that he thought the Board should vote on the waiver request as it was written.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to accept the waiver request with the understanding that there were sources of water close by at the North River. Mr. Voltaire seconded the motion. Mr. Booth, Mr. Voltaire, Mr. Curry, and Mr. Seaverns voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Gylfphe voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-3.
Mr. Smith said that they should put an offset pin on the corner of the property where the tree was. Mr. Caron said that they should put the offset pin 5 feet back from the tree. Mr. Seaverns said that the contiguous uplands notes should be on page 1 of the plan. He said that he also found some of the arrows on the plan confusing. He suggested recessing the hearing.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to recess the public hearing for the Nelson plan until February 2, 2005 at 8:00pm. Mr. Gylfphe seconded that motion. Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth, Mr. Caron, Mr. Curry, and Mr. Voltaire voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- USA SPRINGS:
The Chair called the public hearing for USA Springs to order at 8:30pm.
Mr. Voltaire recused himself from the hearing.
Mr. Seaverns recused himself from the hearing.
Others Present: Mr. John Teague, Planning Board Attorney, Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission, Mr. Tony Soltani, USA Springs Attorney, Several other representatives of USA Springs, Various experts, about 60 members of the public
Mr. Soltani said that USA Springs wanted to make a presentation to the Planning Board.
Mr. Dennis Hamill said that USA Springs had begun this process in 1999. He said that they owned 78.19 acres in Nottingham and 20.11 acres in Barrington. He said that USA Springs had a total of 98.3 acres. He said that they had flagged the wetlands and they had hired a hydro geologist to find water on the site. He showed a slide that pointed out where the wells were located and the water drawn from. He said that they had drilled 4 wells but Well #3 had a low quantity of water so it was not used. He said that the original rough test of the wells had drawn over 400,000 gallons of water per day. He showed a slide and talked about building size. He also said that the plant expected to be able to make 600-800 bottles per minute. Mr. Caron asked if that figure was independent of volume.
Mr. Soltani said that it would depend on the size of the bottle. Mr. Hamill said that the application to put the building on the back of the property had been so that it would affect the least amount of wetlands. He said that the application had been presented to the Nottingham Zoning Board of Adjustments in 2001. He said that the Zoning Board of Adjustments had granted the request in May of 2001. He said that they were originally looking to build a plant that was 180,000 square feet but they had modified their plans and the current size they wanted to build was 176,000 square feet. He said that USA Springs had submitted their current application in March of 2004. He said that they had removed the proposed subdivision and other industrial building from the plan. He explained how they would collect and treat storm water and then release it. He showed slides and pointed out the basins and he said that the company was analyzing the
flows from the watersheds. He said that they had reduced flow at their 8 analyzing points. He said that water was drained back into the wetland. He said that storm water was treated and contained. He explained catch basins, pipes, and grass swale. He also discussed the quality and quantity of the storm water. He said that there would be a septic system built on the property to take care of the employees. He said that it would be a septic system of about 2000 gallons per day. He said that the vernal pool was away from the wetland. He showed a slide and talked about employee parking, a loading dock, and storage areas. He said that the wetlands would be impacted by the building and the road. He said that they would like the road to be about 24 feet wide. He said that the total wetland impact would be about 11,346 square feet for the building and the road. He said that the impact to the wetland from the
improvements that needed to be made to Route 4 would be about 4,450 square feet. He said that for the total project they were going to create 1.5 acres of wetland for every acre they had to impact. He said that they were going to impact about 15,796 square feet of wetland so they were going to create 24,000 square feet of wetland. He said that the dimensions of the building would be 400X440. He said that they would be building a 30,000 gallon cistern and they would have dry hydrants. He said that there would be a gravel fire access road built on the property. He said that it would be for emergency access only and it would be maintained year round. He said that there would be 90 spaces for employee parking and 13 spaces for recreational parking. He said that they would use storage trailers. He said that one of the front building corners would be 190 feet from the property line and the other would be 105 feet from the property
line. He said that the closest parking space would be 210 feet from the property line. He said that there would be 350 feet from the wetlands to the building. He said that there would be no onsite discharge of processed water. He said that there would be an emergency generator for the plant but it would not be large enough to keep the plant running at full capacity. He said that the generator would run 1 production line and the office. He said that there would be a slight pitched roof and a basin which would 7.5 feet deep. He said that they had been issued a dam license. He said that they were planning to put up a sound fence which would be 12 feet high. He said that would minimize the sounds from the plant. He said that they were also going to plant 46 evergreen trees because they would create a year round visual barrier for the neighbors. He gave a detailed description of the lighting which would be at the plant. That lighting included lights in the driveway and
parking areas, mounted on the building, and by the loading dock. He said that the lights on the building would be security lights which would only be 70 watts and about 10 feet high. He showed a slide of the building layout and explained where the 3 production lines would be, the offices, the labs, and the storage areas. He said that radon in the water would be treated on site. He said that UV light would be used to treat the water. He said that there would not be any discharge into the outside atmosphere. He said that there was also a process for moisture. He said that the date stamp which would be used on the bottles did not contain ink. He said that there would be a minimum of 2 days storage in the building just in case of a problem. He said that waste water would be used for cooling the bottles. He said that they would use 6,000 gallons for cleaning once a week. He said that would equal about 857 gallons per day. He said that they had a pressurized system which used
filtered air. He said that they would generate about 1000 gallons of waste water per day. He said that they would spend about 2 hours per week on cleaning. He said that the operation would run at about 90% capacity which would equal about 304,000 gallons of water per day. He said that about 3,000 gallons per day would not be used as a part of the bottling process. Those 3,000 gallons will be mostly employee usage. He said that a traffic analysis had been done for Route 4. He said that they had a sound study, as well as an emergency response plan, a plan for drainage maintenance, a trucking report, and a wildlife habitat assessment.
Mr. Soltani said that USA Springs would do a formal reply to the sound study reviewed by the Planning Board.
James Gove from Gove Group did a presentation about the wetlands impact of the USA Springs proposal. He said that the alternative site location had a greater impact on the wetlands than the first plan. He said that the first plan basically tried to avoid the wetlands. He said that the relationship to the wetlands and the water was part of the impact. He said that the plan as it currently stood had the least direct impact to the wetlands on the site. He talked about conservation easements and he had gone through the wetlands bureau file on this case. He said that his concern was that pumping might cause the table to drop. He said that they needed to look closer at the draw down. Mr. Smith asked if water could be pumped back into the wetlands for mitigation. He said that he had not seen any
manmade mitigation that was as good as real wetland. Mr. Gove said that the applicant would have to address that question. Mr. Gylfphe asked if the alternative site for the building would be better. Mr. Gove said that the present location of the building was fine. He said that 300 feet from the wetland was enough of a buffer. Mr. Gylfphe asked about the size of the culverts under Route 4. Mr. Soltani said that 15 inches would be adequate. He said that they were trying to mimic the actual conditions through testing. Mr. Gylfphe said that moving the building would have less impact on the neighborhood. He said that the wetlands bureau might consider the change because of social impact. Mr. Curry said that they should come up with a rough outline of their case for moving the building. Mr. Gove said that the Wetlands Bureau had to consider the direct wetlands impact, cemetery preservation, the vernal pool, and the distance. He said
that it was a balancing act. Mr. Gylfphe said that by changing the location of the building they would be cutting the amount of surface roadway that they needed in half. Mr. Caron asked if the alternative site would help eliminate mitigation. Mr. Gove said that would need to be explored further. He said that the alternative site would require watching for the long term. Mr. Soltani said that the possibility of draw down did not have anything to do with the location of the building. Mr. Smith asked if it was correct that there had not been any evidence of a draw down to the prime wetland during the pump test. Mr. Soltani said that they would continue to monitor it but they did not know all the details yet.
Mr. Canterra said that he was going to give a report about the effect on wildlife. He said that he had done the work based on what wildlife was on the site in November. He said that he would like to see the potential wildlife in the spring. He said that the wildlife on the site was consistent with the habitat. He said that he had also looked at the effects on the vernal pool and the Barrington Prime Wetlands. He said that the vernal pool was in Tier 1. He said that there were species in the pool and it was a high functioning pool. He said that there was a 100 foot buffer under the current plan and he said that was critical to the species. He said that based on the current plan the vernal pool was well protected. He said that the applicant had done a good job of staying out of the wetland
habitat. He said that moving the building to the alternative location would impact the vernal pool. He said that there were 2 species of turtle which were of concern in New Hampshire. He said that there were also some soils which had not been documented on the site and he thought someone should look to see if those soils were on site. He said that the potential draw down could have an impact because of the potential of an endangered wading bird in the area. He asked if the applicant could look into the wildlife habitat further. He said that they could coordinate with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. He said that there were people with New Hampshire Fish and Game who could offer advice. Ms. Copeland asked about unfragmented land and noted the edge of the habitat at 5 miles. Mr. Canterra said that the USA Springs land was at the end of the block. He said that he did not believe the interior would be negatively
affected. Mr. Curry asked about the alternative site. Mr. Canterra said that the alternative site would have a greater impact on the vernal pool but it would minimize the impact to the Barrington prime wetlands and wildlife movement corridor. He said that 300 feet was an adequate buffer and 800 feet would be a generous buffer. He said that he was concerned about the road. He said that if granite curbing was proposed within 300 feet of the road he recommended Cape Cod curbing. He said that the applicant might also want to consider a "critter crossing" to provide a safe passage for small wildlife under the road. He defined Cape Cod curbing as mounded blacktop and said that the regular curbs barely affected people but they could be very difficult for small animals to get over. Mr. Hamill said that the design was for sloped granite in the area. Mr. Soltani said that there had been no measurable water level change in the
prime wetland during the 10 day pump test. He also said that USA Springs would not mind installing a "critter crossing."
Mr. John Gilbert from GeoInsight came forward to give a presentation. He discussed the plant size and said that the layout was consistent with the practices of other plants of this type. He said that the applicant had presented a good summary description of the process. He talked about water quality data and about more details about the filtration of water. He said that they would oxidize the water during the filtration process. He said that he was looking for more information on the rates of radon. He said that there were standard operations for removing waste and there would not be any local impact. He said that there was a possibility there would be PET emissions. He said that they were still waiting for the final traffic review. He said that the traffic levels appeared to be
consistent. Mr. Curry said that it was hard to judge the layout. Mr. Gilbert said that the plans were conceptual but that they seemed appropriate. Mr. Curry asked if the plans changed whether they would still be appropriate. Mr. Gilbert said that the plans were consistent with plans for other facilities of the same type. Mr. Caron asked about the alternative building site. Mr. Gilbert said that it was worth a detailed evaluation. Mr Curry asked if GeoInsight would need information from the applicant in order to do that evaluation. Mr. Gilbert said that he needed more information about radon and PET.
Mr. Eric Reuter said that he was going to do a presentation on the noise study. He said that the noise would have an impact on Lincoln Drive because the facility would be close to the residents. He said that he had looked at the stationary mechanical equipment which would be on site. He said that there would also be vehicle noise. He said that employee traffic would not be an issue. He said that the trucking and the dock would be louder than the employee traffic. He said that the entrance road would not be a concern. He said that there needed to be more criteria to use when judging noise impact. He said that there were federal criteria and Environmental Protection Agency criteria but he said that those were simply guidelines. He said that those criteria needed to be discussed more.
He said that he had looked at whether the neighbors would be adversely affected. He said that he had reviewed the sound report submitted by USA Springs and determined the levels were appropriate. He said that he would recommend continuous sound monitoring over several days. He said that so far the testing had been done in 5 one hour periods. He said that the calculation methods used were sound. He said that he was bothered by the sound level descriptors and he described short duration acoustic events. He said that these events would be the biggest problem with noise at the plant. He said that he would need more information to analyze that. He said that he would need sources, receivers, heights, etc. Mr. Smith asked if the sound barrier and the trees would be adequate. Mr. Reuter said that the barrier looked like it was going to be placed correctly. He said that it might need to be higher but he would need more
information to analyze that. He said that the trees would not have any effect except as a visual barrier. Mr. Smith asked about acceleration and deceleration noise. Mr. Reuter said that might be noisy. Mr. Smith asked about HVAC on the roof. Mr. Reuter said that any noise from that would not have a significant impact on the neighbors. Mr. Booth asked about whether they would be impact from PET being unloaded. Mr. Reuter said that he did not know the answer to that question but it was a fair question to ask the applicant. Mr. Caron asked about the alternate building site. Mr. Reuter said that it was better from an acoustical standpoint. Mr. Curry asked how long it would be before Mr. Reuter could do additional review. Mr. Reuter said that there was a list of information that he needed. He said that he could do a quick turn around and he could probably do the additional analysis in a week. Mr. Caron
suggested that they get a more detailed description for the alternate building site.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the next Planning Board public hearing on USA Springs should be held on February 9, 2005 at 7:00pm. Mr. Gylfphe seconded that motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth, Mr Gylfphe, Mr. Caron, and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Smith said that he would like to have the experts come back to the next public hearing so that they could answer questions from the Planning Board and the public.
Ms. Copeland asked if GeoInsight had looked at offsite contamination.
Mr. Hamill said that there were roof mounted chillers and some chillers inside which did not make any noise. He also said that there would vacuum equipment inside the building which would not make any substantial noise.
Ms. Copeland asked if there were directives the Planning Board had for her.
Mr. Caron asked if the Board would get written responses from USA Springs to their reports by their next USA Springs public hearing meeting when they would be able to ask questions. Mr. Soltani said that getting those reports to the Board by that meeting would be feasible.
Mr. Gylfphe asked about MTBE. He said that it was prevalent in Northwood. Mr. Soltani said that MTBE was not filtered out. He said that if there was the possibility of preventing MTBE the company would do it. He said that no MTBE had been seen yet.
Mr. Caron said that USA Springs should do a 5-7 day monitoring for sound. He said that they should pursue the search for the two types of turtles that might be on the property. He said that they should also look at the wetlands impact for the alternative building site.
Mr. Curry introduced a written motion that he had done. He read it out loud to the Board and the audience. He said that the purpose of his motion was to justify and point out the concerns that he and other Board members had about this project. He said that his motion asked the applicant to use the alternate site plan for the placement of the building. Mr. Garnett asked if the restrictions placed by the Zoning Board of Adjustments disappeared if the building were built in a commercial zone. Mr. Caron said no. Mr. Armand Hyatt said that both the applicant and the Planning Board had spent a lot of time and money to get information on the proposed site. Mr. Teague said that the special exception had been granted for the entire site. Mr. Hyatt asked if the applicant needed to start over with a new
site plan application. Mr. Teague said no. He said that the alternative site was a part of the current site plan application. Mr. Gylfphe said that he was looking at this project as an industrial complex. He said that the alternate site might be a better location for an industrial building. He said that he thought there would be less impact on the town in general if the alternate site was used. Mr. Curry said that all the parties involved needed to work towards a specific site and a common goal. He said that had been his idea in proposing this motion. He said that he felt this was a reasonable and valid approach to take. Mr. Hyatt said that they needed permission from the Department of Environmental Services to move the proposed location of the building. He said that they did not want to put all of their eggs in one basket. He wondered if the Board wanted to vote to urge the Department of Environmental Services to
approve this new building location. Mr. Caron said that this needed to be done with the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Soltani said that they would need approval regarding the cemetery. Mr. Smith asked whether the considerations of the Zoning Board of Adjustments should be a part of the motion. Mr. Teague said that they needed to see if it would be possible to make the change. He said that the Planning Board and USA Springs needed to get their agreements on paper in writing. He said that they needed to do a statement of understanding so both sides agreed on the terms. Mr. Soltani said that USA Springs would respond to the information presented at this hearing. He said that the comments of the Planning Board would help make the case to the Department of Environmental Services for the alternative site.
The Planning Board made some slight changes to the motion. The complete motion as amended is as follows:
Mr. Curry made the following motion.
A Sense of the Planning Board
The Planning Board makes the following observations about the current proposed site plan:
1. The location of the building is within 350 feet of the Barrington Prime Wetland #40
2. The location of the building is within 100 feet of residential lot lines
3. The operations of the plant will be 24 hours, 7 days a week
4. The shape of the building is square
Therefore we believe at least the following impacts exist but are not limited to:
-There are potential impacts (e.g. Noise, human activity, drainage, wildlife disturbance) to prime wetland #40 because of the proposed location of the building.
-The loading and transporting of bottles will likely create an occasional level of noise that will likely disrupt the residential neighborhood.
- The physical plant and internal operations may create noise throughout the night that will likely impact the residents.
- The lighting of the plant will likely cause disturbance (e.g. Night glow) to the residential neighborhood, especially those homes closest and when viewed from a
second story.
- The trucks used to transport bottles, will likely cause some air pollution and the pollution will likely be visible or smelled by residents.
-The plant and overall site will be close to the residents and therefore the asethetics of the neighborhood will likely be diminished.
-In the event of an accident, there will likely be an effect due to the limited buffer between the plant and prime wetland #40 or the residential neighborhood.
- The long length of the driveway will likely have a greater effect on the overall drainage
and character of the lot and the abutting lots.
Therefore the Planning Board feels the combined impacts may need to be mitigated in order to be acceptable to the town.
The "alternate building location" site plan locates the building several hundred feet to the west-northwest of the proposed site plan. This alternate site plan would greatly mitigate the above impacts and be considered more favorably by the Board. Therefore, we urge the applicant to propose the alternate site plan as the site plan to be under consideration moving forward. While the alternate site plan mitigates impacts, it does not necessarily address all impacts.
The above statement shall be a sense of the Planning Board.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Caron. Mr. Curry, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Mr. Booth, and Mr. Gylfphe voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Teague said that they needed to think about how and when they wanted to go to the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Smith noted that there was a Department of Environmental Services wetlands hearing on January 26, 2005. Mr. Teague said that they should talk to the Department of Environmental Services in advance of that. Mr. Caron said that the applicant should approach the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Teague said that they should go to the regulatory agencies and ask what they preferred. He said that he would consult with the Planning Board when he got a clear direction from the applicant as to how they felt about the proposed change.
Mr. Smith said that they had an escrow account with GeoInsight. Mr. Soltani said that it was a trilateral agreement. Ms. Copeland said that the agency usually bills the town and the town sends the bill to the applicant.
Mr. Soltani said that they were granting the extension to the next meeting. Mr. Smith asked if it was possible to grant it beyond one meeting so it did not need to be done each time. Mr. Soltani said that it was usually not done that way.
Mr. Garnett asked if the Planning Board had an official response from the Board to the request that had been made for certain members of the Board to recuse themselves from this application. Mr. Smith said that he did not have an official response but he said that his decision to accept the application was based on SRPC review which stated that the application was substantially complete and he also felt the application was complete enough to accept. He said that he would not recuse himself for voting in favor of the application. Mr. Gylfphe and Mr. Booth stated that they concurred.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the USA Springs discussion until the public hearing scheduled for February 9, 2005 at 7:00pm. Mr. Curry seconded that motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Curry, Mr. Smith, Mr. Caron, and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
The Planning Board decided to put off voting on their minutes until the next meeting.
Mr. Curry made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:40pm. Mr. Caron seconded that motion. Mr. Curry, Mr. Caron, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
