NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JULY 13, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD AUGUST 24, 2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. David Smith, Chair
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen Representative
Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Jon Caron
Mr. Bill Booth
Mr. Scott Curry
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. John Teague, Attorney
Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
Mr. Tony Soltani, Attorney for USA Springs
Other Representatives from USA Springs
Members of the public
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:15pm.
PUBLIC HEARING- USA SPRINGS:
Ms. Copeland said that she had talked about permits at the previous USA Springs workshop meeting. She said that she had a discussion with the Building Inspector about the process. She said that she had some more information about that topic. Mr. Hyatt, from USA Springs asked whether the applicant could take the information and then have some time to look at it before the next scheduled workshop meeting.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the public hearing be recessed long enough for everyone to move into another room. Mr. Gylfphe seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Mr. Smith asked for a show of hands from the public as to who came from what town. The members of the public represented many area towns beyond Nottingham and Barrington.
Ms. Copeland said that she was working on linking the permits to the site plan review process. She said that the applicant would review her work and prepare a response. A representative from USA Springs asked if the Planning Board had looked at the information and whether they wanted to allow discussion between hired consultants. Ms. Barker, from New Hampshire Soils said that Ms. Copeland had brought up questions and she said that the applicant wanted clarification of what items the Planning Board wanted them to provide. Mr. Caron said that any revisions to the plan and the application should be made before the Planning Board was asked for an approval. Mr. Hamill, from USA Springs, said that the plans had already been adjusted and submitted to the state. He said that he would do the final plans when all of
the little things were worked out. Another representative from USA Springs said that the applicant was ok with Mr. Caron's suggestion. Ms. Copeland started to go over the permit conditions. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board accepted conditions 3-6. Ms. Copeland asked which town officials should receive the registered copy of permits. Mr. Bock said that the Building Inspector should definitely receive those but he said that the Planning Board would like some time to think about what other officials might get them. Mr. Hyatt said that he was unsure about the meaning of "change of status." Ms. Copeland said that she had questions about that phrase as well. She said that the wording had come directly from the permit. Mr. Curry said that it should be part of the conditions that "permittee" and other unclear words were defined. Mr. Caron said that the permittee should record the permits with the registry
and there should be time limits on that process. Mr. Soltani said that the registry sometimes took time with things. Mr. Gylfphe said that he would make a motion stating that the town needed to have copies of permits within 15 days after the permits were received by the registry. He said that for permits that did not need to be recorded the applicant had a maximum of 15 days to deliver them to the town. Mr. Curry said that he thought 15 days was too long during construction. Ms. Bonser said that the applicant would receive proof from the registry that the permit had been submitted. Mr. Smith said that for condition #8 he felt 7 days should be the maximum. Mr. Soltanii said that the Planning Board might want to appoint a designee to take care of that. Mr. Bock asked about the season the applicant was going to take photos. Mr. Smith said that the photos should be taken during at least one growing season. Ms. Barker noted
that the photos would only document the wetlands. Mr. Hyatt said that said that he would submit the deed restrictions and easements from the applicant to Mr. Teague as soon as possible. Mr. Hamill noted that information would be shown on multiple plans with the town and the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds. Ms. Copeland said that there needed to be discussion of the turtle nesting habitat management. Mr. Hamill said that he was not sure that should require an additional sheet on the plan. Ms. Barker said that it was a part of the conditions in the wetlands bureau permit. Ms. Jones said that in previous workshops the Board had discussed having everything in the plan and not referenced in multiple places. Mr. Hamill said that the depiction of the turtle habitat on the ground was more important than on the plan. He said that people needed to know the layout when they were walking on the ground. Ms. Barker said that the areas set
aside for turtle habitats were suggested by the Department of Fish and Game after they had done a site walk. She said that they were not based on where the turtles actually went but where they could go based on their habits. Mr. Curry wondered if the plan should include a general sheet of notes. Ms. Copeland said that she thought the applicant could rebuild the stone walls on the property to maintain the rural landscape. Mr. Hyatt said that they would look into using the stones. He said that they only had one planned wall. The applicant asked whether they were being asked to keep the stones they did not use. Mr. Smith said that he thought it should be added to the plan if the stones were going to leave the property. Mr. Hyatt said that he would propose a plan for the stones at the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Smith asked how the turtle areas would be monitored. Ms. Barker said that the areas would be maintained but it would
be labor intensive to monitor and inventory them. She said that would be asking the applicant to go above and beyond the permit conditions. Ms. Copeland said that someone ought to be able to look for signs of turtle nesting activity. Mr. Booth said that specifics should be noted and he did not think that observation sounded labor intensive. Mr. Caron said that maybe the language regarding the turtle nesting habitats should be clarified. Ms. Barker said that there would be a one time assessment of the areas each turtle breeding season.
Several members of the public noted that they were not interested in the turtle discussion and they wanted to discuss water issues.
Mr. Gylfphe said that the state had taken control of the water. He said that the Planning Board was responsible for looking at the industrial building. Ms. Jones said that the Planning Board needed to make decisions and they could not make them based on emotions. Mr. Caron said that he felt the Planning Board was responsible for helping both the applicants and the public understand the process.
Ms. Copeland suggested that the applicant double the deed restriction area. Ms. Barker said that deed restriction area was a buffer to protect the wetlands. Mr. Hyatt said he would ask that the deed restriction area remain as it was currently planned.
In response to public dissatisfaction, Mr. Smith said that the public had been given the opportunity to speak in the past and would have more opportunity to speak later in the evening.
Mr. Caron asked about the possibility of doubling the restriction area around the wildlife habitats. Mr. Hyatt said that was a fair suggestion. He said that the applicant would discuss it and would make a decision for discussion at the workshop meeting in August.
Mr. Gylfphe said that the Board had been talking about the Groundwater Withdrawal Permit and what the Department of Environmental Services had asked the applicant to do.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Ms. Liz Como from Rye said that the Planning Board needed to see that this application would benefit the community. She said that this decision would affect surrounding communities. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board needed to help the applicant fulfill the requirements and inform the public. He said that the Department of Environmental Services was responsible for the quantity of the water withdrawal. He said that the court had ruled that into law. Ms. Como asked how the building would benefit the town. Mr. Bock said that the Planning Board had a specific responsibility. He said that the Board of Selectmen was challenging the state in court. Mr. Caron said that the Planning Board was trying to mitigate the impact to the community. Ms. Jones said that property owners had a right to
use their property. She said that the owners had to follow the regulations but she said that if the owner was following the regulations than even if the Board didn't want the project they still needed to agree to allow it.
Mr. Bill McCann said that it was an oversimplification to say that the state was responsible. He said that the town had to consider protecting the quality of groundwater. He said that several courts had ruled that pipes were part of land use. Mr. Curry said that this had been discussed before. He said that the Planning Board was pursuing this with the applicant.
Ms. Arlene Roth asked who USA Springs was, why they wanted the water, and who owned the company. Mr. Curry said that the company would use the water for bottling and selling to foreign and domestic consumers.
Mr. Jim Hadley from Northwood discussed bedrock aquifers.
Mr. Manny Krasner from Farmington said that the Planning Board should use their own judgement and they should set their own standards. He said that they were not restricted to what any state boards did. He said that the state requirements should be the absolute minimum.
Mr. Bill Vance from Strafford asked if legal notices had been sent to each surrounding town with a disclaimer. Mr. Smith said that 10 towns had been notified of the regional impact. He said that representatives from Barrington and Northwood regularly attended Planning Board meetings on the application. Mr. Vance said that Nottingham should try to force this issue with other towns.
Ms. Diane Kirkwood read from parts of the Nottingham Master Plan. She said that 99% of the people opposed this application. She said that the Planning Board needed to say no. She said that the town and the citizens had a right to say no. Mr. Smith said that the Master Plan was not law. Ms. Jones said that the Master Plan was used to develop law.
Ms. Amy Trumbell from Madbury said that she was concerned saltwater intrusion would effect well quality. Mr. Smith said that the Planning Board did not have the resources to study that. Mr. Curry said that the Planning Board would take the public comment into consideration.
Mr. Bill Garnett read a letter from Mr. Ed Mosque and he said that Mr. Mosque worked at the Soltani Law Firm. He said that he felt the letter accused the people against this of being liberal. He said that he was concerned about his property and his property rights and he said that people on both the left and right ideologies were concerned about that. He said that everyone was entitled to protection under the law.
Ms. Judy Doughty said that there were too many ifs involved with the application to jeopardize the water supply. She said that the Planning Board should answer to the people who elected them. She said that the integrity of the company submitting this application was in question and she said that this issue was about water.
Ms. Olivia Zinc from Durham said that they needed to determine a price. She said that the citizens deserved the security of a bond.
Ms. Betsy Simpson from Barrington said that she was looking for information on the cleanup efforts. She wondered whether Nottingham was involved. Mr. Curry said that the Department of Environmental Services had overseen that cleanup. He said that the Planning Board had received a memo from the Department stating that the cleanup was complete.
Mr. Rolfe Voltaire said that acceleration lanes would be put onto the west side of Route 4 and he wondered why they would not be put onto the east side. Mr. Smith said that was part of the Department of Transportation permit. Mr. Hyatt said that the DOT and the TEPP had experts which had determined that traffic pattern. Mr. Hamill said that this was a standard intersection design for this type of facility.
Ms. Charlene Andersen asked for the Planning Board's permission to give a short presentation. The Planning Board agreed.
Ms. Linda Tchartik from Durham noted that the Planning Board was close to a decision on this. She asked about the timeline and wondered when the Board planned to vote. Ms. Jones said that the Board would vote when all things were resolved. Mr. Teague said that according to the statute the Board has 65 days to make decisions. He said that the Board had continued to get voluntary agreements from the applicant to continue the discussion. He said that the applicant was within their rights to say no. He said that the applicant had expressed a desire for a resolution to this and the Planning Board agreed.
A member of the public asked when there would be a public discussion on the issue of lawsuits. Mr. Bock said that the community had spent a lot of money on this. Mr. Curry requested that public comment should be put into writing.
Ms. Andersen did a short power point presentation referencing Nestle Waters Company in Tennessee. She looked at processes and referenced information provided by the applicant regarding their future business plans. She asked whether there would be a variance given on the silos and she was concerned as to why USA Springs would need the same amount of space as Nestle Waters to produce less product.
Another member of the public read from a newsletter and expressed concerns.
Mr. Curry asked if GeoInsight could review Ms. Andersen's presentation and see if her points were reasonable. He said that they should ask the applicant how the size and shape of the building were part of the business plan.
Mr. Curry made a motion to have GeoInsight review this presentation and determine whether the proposed size and shape of the building were reasonable.
Mr. Hyatt noted that wetlands and other factors were involved in the design of the building.
Ms. Jones thanked Ms. Anderson for giving a serious, well thought out presentation.
Ms. Jones seconded Mr. Curry's motion.
Mr. Gilbert agreed that the information in the presentation was worth exploring.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Mr. Gilbert presented the Board with a memo of possible conditions they might want to use if they approved this plan. He also introduced Mr. McLean and said that he had been helping with the review of this application.
Mr. Teague asked if the applicant was extending the deadline. Mr. Soltani said yes.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the USA Springs application to a workshop on August 10, 2005 and a public hearing on August 17, 2005. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45pm. Mr. Caron seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
