MARCH 2, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD APRIL 20, 2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Dave Smith, Chair Mr. Rolfe Voltaire
Mr. Jon Caron, Selectmen Representative
Ms. Kay Kyle
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Bill Booth, Alternate
Ms. Judi Thibault, Alternate
Mr. Scott Curry, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. John Teague, Attorney
Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectman
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING-GATCHELL:
The Chair called the public hearing for Gatchell to order at 7:12pm.
Mr. Berry said that he was representing Gatchell. He said that they were looking for a suitable solution to the issue of the roadway in Nottingham. He said that Northwood could not accept the portion of the roadway which would be in Nottingham being private. He said that Northwood would like to see Nottingham accept some responsibility for the roadway on 152. He said that this subdivision would not affect the taxes collected in Nottingham. He said that all the addresses in the subdivision would be in Northwood. He said that the people living in the subdivision would not get Nottingham services. He said that Northwood was willing to accept the winter maintenance of the portion of the roadway in Nottingham. He said that Northwood used a company called Underwood Engineering to inspect their roads
and he said that according to that company the road should last 20-25 years before it needed maintenance.
Mr. Seaverns said that liability for accidents on the road had not been addressed. Mr. Berry asked for an explanation of the liability that the town would have. Mr. Seaverns said that they were concerned the town might be liable for accidents on the road if there were slippery conditions or maintenance issues. He said that it did not make sense for Nottingham to maintain 50 feet of roadway. Mr. Berry asked if an association could do the maintenance. Mr. Seaverns said yes. Mr. Caron said that they were not going to create 50 feet of town road without going through the full process. Mr. Berry said that there was an ordinance in Northwood which prohibited private roads. Ms. Kyle noted that Nottingham did not gain anything from this proposal but responsibility. Mr. Seaverns said that he did
not think this proposal solved the problem. Mr. Curry said that he was concerned the liability could be an issue. Ms. Kyle said that there was not any benefit to Nottingham for doing this. Mr. Berry said that he would like to ask that they continue this discussion at another meeting. He said that they were meeting with Northwood on March 28, 2005. Mr. Teague said that he would continue to discuss this with the legal counsel in Northwood. Mr. Smith said that Nottingham had not had a joint meeting with Northwood on this matter. He wondered if Nottingham should send legal counsel to the meeting with Northwood. Mr. Seaverns said that Northwood should contact Nottingham on this issue. Mr. Berry said that he would discuss this with Northwood.
Mr. Caron made a motion to recess the public hearing for Gatchell to 7:00pm on March 16, 2005. Mr. Gylfphe seconded that motion. Mr. Caron, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, and Ms. Kyle voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING- ESTATE OF NATALIE GOOCH:
The Chair opened the public hearing for the Estate of Natalie Gooch at 7:35pm.
Mr. Landry introduced himself and Ms. Morrison and said that they were representing the estate.
Mr. Landry said that he had added note #4 to the plan and he had also put the Department of Transportation driveway number and the 911 numbers on the plan. He said that he had put the contiguous upland on the first page of the plan. He said that he had also done a revised impact statement based on the information he had gotten from Ms. Copeland. Ms. Copeland said that she had a question about the river frontage. She said that the Planning Board needed to be consistent with what was done on larger subdivisions. She said that her question involved undeveloped space and whether there would be further subdivision on this land. Mr. Smith asked whether shore land protection would apply to this property. Mr. Landry said that the state shore land protection did not come up as far as this property.
Mr. Seaverns made a motion to approve the subdivision application of Joanne Morrison on behalf of the Estate of Natalie Gooch. Mr. Caron seconded the motion.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Curry to sit for Mr. Voltaire and Mr. Booth to sit for Mr. Rourke.
Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Caron, Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Smith, Ms. Kyle, Mr. Curry and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Curry made a motion to recess the meeting to the large room for the USA Springs hearing. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Mr. Caron, Mr. Smith, Mr. Seaverns, Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Kyle and Mr. Booth 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 8:12pm.
Mr. Seaverns and Ms. Kyle recused themselves from the proceedings. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Thibault to sit for Mr. Seaverns.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion that the Board try to finish their business by 10:00pm. Ms. Thibault seconded that motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Thibault, Mr. Smith, Mr. Curry, Mr. Caron and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Teague said that sometimes people's emotions got ahead of them. He apologized for any offense he might have caused when he had spoken to the crowd at previous meetings. He said that everyone needed to be civil. He said that Mr. Hyatt had submitted a letter of apology for some comments he had made to certain Board members at a previous meeting. He read the letter from Mr. Hyatt which stated that he should not have used profanity and that he did not have any hostility towards anyone on the Planning Board. Mr. Teague said that the apology was accepted.
Mr. Edward Mosque said that he represented the applicant. He said that the applicant had submitted a revised application and request to the Board. He said that the applicant had felt it was important to be cooperative with the Planning Board.
Mr. Dennis Hamill said that he would like to speak. He said that he was from Camett Engineering. He said that there was a common misconception that there had been a 2 foot draw down in the Barrington Prime Wetland during the pump test. He said that there had not been any draw down during the test. He said that based on their model there would be a 2 foot draw down if they had 180 days without rain or ground water replenishment. He said that the new location of the building was in a commercial/industrial zone. He said that they were going to maintain a 100 foot buffer around the vernal pool. He said that there would be 39 drainage zones, 25 catch basins and 2 treatment basins. He said that there would not be any run off from the site. He said that there would be 115 parking spaces, 26
loading bays and 25 areas for trailer storage. He said that the new proposed building would be 176,000 square feet. He said that the measurements on that would be 400x440. He said that there would be a 30,000 gallon cistern. He discussed the constructed wetlands and the roof chamber system. He said that they had also revised the lighting plan because of the new building location. He talked about the inside of the building and said that they would have 3 bottling lines. He summarized the changes in the application for the Planning Board.
Ms. Amanda Barker from the New Hampshire Soil Consultants spoke about the changes in wetland impacts. She said that the new proposed building would be farther from Barrington Prime Wetland #40. She said that they had avoided direct impacts and they were maintaining a 100 foot upland buffer. She said that the state wetland permit application would be completed and submitted in 2 weeks.
Mr. Mosque said that the Department of Environmental Services had an interest in the concerns of the town.
Ms. Barker said that the applicant needed to compensate for 29,587 square feet of wetland impact. She said that they were proposing to create an additional vernal pool. She said that they could create the vernal pool as a part of their wetland creation and enhancement. She said that the additional vernal pool would provide a protected habitat and aquatic breeding area. She said that 38 acres of land next to the wetland would not be developed. She said that Mr. Hamill had already discussed the statistic of the 2 foot draw down. She emphasized that had not happened during the pump test and would only happen after 180 days of no water recharge. She discussed the 4 stages of management procedures. She also discussed the protection of the cemetery on the property. She said that the cemetery
would be reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and they would look at the cemetery and grave records. She said that the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources had told them that there was not any further archeological work necessary on the site. She said that there would be a wall 40 feet around the cemetery to protect it and to create a visual barrier. She said that there were not any rare or endangered species on the property.
Mr. Curry asked why the applicant was creating a vernal pool. He asked how they would judge that the vernal pool had been mitigated successfully. Ms. Barker said that they would try to determine the functions and the values of the wetlands which were being impacted. She said that would require that the areas be monitored for a time period. She said that was a condition of the applicant's permit. Mr. Curry asked again why the vernal pool was being created. Ms. Barker said that it would help them create the square footage of wetland that they needed. Mr. Smith said that the applicant did not need to create as much wetland if they created a vernal pool. Ms. Barker said that the applicant was still planning to create the full required amount of wetland. She said that with the vernal pool the
applicant would be creating over and above the required amount of wetland. Mr. Curry asked about the cutting of trees. Ms. Barker said that they were not supposed to cut any trees in wetland areas or near the vernal pool. She said that the vernal pool would function as a wetland but it would also be used to treat storm water. Mr. Smith asked if created vernal pools had success. He asked who would monitor the success of this one. Ms. Barker said that the applicant would maintain the tree cover over the vernal pool. She said that a certified wetlands scientist would need to monitor the vernal pool. Mr. Smith said that there had been a rain event in the area during the time period of the pump test. He noted that the pump test had not shown any draw down and he asked if the rain had affected that. Mr. Mosque said that the Department of Environmental Services had reviewed that and had been satisfied with the results of the pump
test. He said that one of the conditions of the Department of Environmental Services permit was that there needed to be monitoring of triggers. He said that there would be 75% of the permitted yield if there was a moderate drought condition. He also said that the site must be open to the Department of Environmental Services at all times. Mr. Smith asked if there had been any change in the water level during the pump test. Mr. Mosque said that there had been an increase in the water level during the pump test. He said that they had needed to run the pump test for additional days. He said that information was included in the model. Mr. Smith asked if the Just Cause site had been cleaned up. Mr. Mosque said yes. He said that they would also be doing another pump test in April. Mr. Smith asked about the barn on the property. Mr. Hamill said that they did not plan to reconstruct the barn. Mr. Smith asked if
there would be a note on the plan saying that there would not be any more development on the property beyond what was in the application. Mr. Mosque said that the applicant would consider that suggestion. Mr. Teague said that he had been under the impression that such an agreement would be made.
Mr. Mills read a letter that he had written previously which discussed the Planning Board members who had been asked to recuse themselves from these hearings. He said that the people of Nottingham had the right to be represented by whoever they chose and he said that the people who were asked to recuse themselves were elected members of the Planning Board and representatives of the people of Nottingham. He noted that the people would be voting on new members the next week and he asked which members of the Board had reached the end of their elected terms. Mr. Smith talked a little about the vacancies on the Board. Mr. Caron said that the Planning Board would appoint someone to fill Ms. Kyle's position.
Ms. Kyle read a letter she had written stating that the contaminated site needed to be cleaned up. She said that 3 year old wetland violations had been mitigated only 22% and the Department of Environmental Services had assessed no penalties. She said that the Department of Environmental Services was not acting in the best interests of the people of Nottingham.
The Frasers who are abutters submitted a letter to the Planning Board. Mr. Smith read it out loud. It stated that the Frasers were in support of USA Springs building in their neighborhood.
Mr. Peter Thompson said that he would like to make a presentation regarding the potential draw down etc. He said that he was a structural geologist and he taught environmental and physical geology at the University of New Hampshire. He said that he felt there was an uncertain zone of influence. He said that he felt the zone of influence was larger than had been stated by the applicant. He said that there would be a small amount of water recharge during the summer. He said that he could predict the direction of potential contaminants. He said that some attention needed to be given to that. He showed a drawing of the suggested zone of influence fracture zones and he said that he thought they would be more unpredictable in shape than the applicant had led them to believe. He said that there would
be an impact on the wetlands and he was concerned about the larger wetlands. He said that he believed there was evidence to suggest that the wetlands would be affected every summer. He discussed the possible draw down in detail. He said that sometimes groundwater could be 100 feet below the ground. He said that the data had not been corrected to include the rain during the pump test. He said that the system would be losing water all along the length of it. He said that he did not think the estimate they had been given by USA Springs was conservative at all. Mr. Curry noted that the Department of Environmental Services was responsible for large groundwater withdrawals. Mr. Teague said that there was no line which clearly defined the state and town. He said that it was appropriate for the town to consider this information. He said that the town did not have the authority to overrule the state but it would be appropriate for
the Planning Board to consider the information that Mr. Thompson had given them. Mr. Thompson said that he would recommend the monitoring of other contaminant sites. He said that he would make a presentation to the state. He said that the water quality had not been mentioned but it was not required to test water quality in residential wells. Mr. Caron said that the town had been in touch with the Department of Environmental Services. He said that the Department of Environmental Services wanted to wait until they saw the amended application before they rescheduled their public hearing.
Mr. Randal Shuey from GOVE Environmental said that the new proposed building location added wetland impact but it impacted less important wetland. He said that they had the benefit of protecting a wide buffer area. He said that the undeveloped property would be a value. He said that lots of people were not willing to create vernal pools. He said that the vernal pool would be a benefit to everyone. He said that he thought this was a good site plan for this lot.
Mr. John Gilbert said that the change in the plan did not affect much except for the noise study. He said that more information would be coming about that. He said that the two experts were discussing that and they would resolve it. He said that there would be a change in storm water management systems. Mr. Teague said that there was no need to go to the Rockingham County Conservation District on the storm water issue.
Mr. Steve Conklin said that he was from Barrington. He said that a list of documents regarding the USA Springs case needed to be generated. He said that it was good that they had moved the proposed building site and that they were talking about water withdrawal. He said that they should consider a conservation performance bond. He said that otherwise the property could be sold to someone else and they would build on the part that USA Springs was saying they were not planning to build on.
Mr. Bret Gillespie said that he was the largest property owner of property abutting the USA Springs site. He said that he did not have an objection to it.
Mr. Mark Belleveau said that he was an attorney representing Barrington. He said that he appreciated the efforts to move the building. He said that the 38 acres the applicant was not planning to build on should be a conservation easement. He said that area should be permanently protected. He said that a concern in Barrington was that the data modeled a significant impact. He said it was his opinion that the conditions of the permit would not protect the people. He mentioned 3 potential triggers. He said that there needed to be a public hearing about activity near the prime wetland to prove that there was no impact. He said that questions about operational efficiency needed to be addressed. He said that they could not waste too much water. He also noted that the plan was still very
conceptual. He noted that there was a limit of 60 trucks per day but he said that different information on that had been discussed. He said that the Planning Board did not define trucks. He said that there needed to be an independent analysis. He said that some trucks were much heavier than others and the Board needed to decide whether they would allow 60 of the heavier trucks as opposed to regular sized trucks.
Mr. Dan Mather said that he was a large landowner on Route 4. He said that he supported industry on Route 4. He said that Nottingham needed to bring down their tax base.
Mr. Smith asked if anyone would analyze the trucking issue. Mr. Gilbert said yes.
Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board would put off their scheduled USA Springs workshop until they got more information from the Department of Environmental Services.
Mr. Gylfphe said that the Planning Board needed to continue to look at this application in terms of it being for an industrial building.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the USA Springs public hearing to April 6, 2005 at 8:00pm. Ms. Thibault seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Thibault, Mr. Smith, Mr. Caron and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry voted against the motion. The motion passed 5-1.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:30pm. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Mr. Curry, Mr. Booth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Caron and Ms. Thibault voted in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
