NOTTINGHAM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 2005
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD AUGUST 31, 2005
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. David Smith, Chair Mr. Scott Curry
Ms. Mary Bonser, Selectmen's Representative
Ms. Sandra Jones
Mr. Peter Gylfphe
Mr. Jon Caron
Mr. Bill Booth
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Planning Board Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
PUBLIC HEARING- GERRIOR:
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Sean Malone, Ms. Cynthia Copeland, Mr. Bob Shields, Mr. Bill Tanguay, Mr. Steve Conklin, Ms. Heidi Seaverns, Mr. Skip Seaverns
Mr. Malone said that the applicant had all their state permits. He said that their plan had been revised to include the phasing and they had added Note #19. He said that the applicant had a sign off from Ed Minic at the Rockingham County Conservation District and they had dealt with issues of grading and drainage easement. He said that they had also added a note about stormwater prevention which had been suggested by Ms. Copeland. Mr. Smith said that the Board of Selectmen had not acted on the road names. Ms. Copeland read out loud the report from the Rockingham County Conservation District which had been sent to her by Ms. Mary Currier. Ms. Jones noted that according to the regulations a project needed to be able to deal with a 25 year storm event (a storm that could happen once every 25 years). Mr.
Malone said that the pond could still handle a storm. Mr. Smith read out loud a letter from the office of the Selectmen regarding the road name issue. A representative from Gerrior said that everything which would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds was accurate. Mr. Caron said that everything on the plans should be consistent. He asked if the applicant had double checked the house numbers. The representative from Gerrior said that they had added 4 to the numbers which were the same in both towns. Ms. Seaverns said that Barrington would renumber the houses. Mr. Seaverns asked why the road name for the portion of the road in Nottingham couldn't be different from the road name in Barrington. Ms. Jones said that Barrington Fire and Rescue had a problem with the road name changing at the town border. Mr. Seaverns noted that was Barrington's problem and not Nottingham's. Mr. Caron said that the plan needed to be revised so
that it was correct. Mr. Smith read out loud the memo stating that the Nottingham Road agent had seen the plans and did not have an objection to them. Mr. Malone said that they had changed the road name back to Gerrior Drive to appease everyone. He said that the applicant had wanted to find an acceptable solution and they thought the plan they were submitting to the Board that night was a good solution to the problem.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the public hearing for Gerrior.
Mr. Shields said that there had been a letter to Barrington from Ms. Carlson in the Nottingham Selectmen's Office. He said that it was just a matter of the Nottingham Board of Selectmen rescinding their motion to have 2 different road names and the towns talking to each other. He said that the applicant would do a new mylar if there was a problem and they would bear the full costs of that. Mr. Caron said that the plans needed to be consistent. He said that this was the first time the Board had seen the changes. Mr. Tanguay said that the Planning Board was just holding up the process. He said that this issue of the road name would be resolved. Mr. Conklin said that the Barrington Conservation Commission would be meeting with the Barrington Board of Selectmen about environmental concerns they had with
this project.
Mr. Gylfphe made a motion to recess the public hearing for Gerrior to August 24, 2005 at 7:00pm. Ms. Bonser seconded the motion. Mr. Gylfphe, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Smith, Mr. Caron, and Mr. Booth voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Jones abstained from the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with 1 abstention.
WORKSHOP- USA SPRINGS:
The Chair opened the USA Springs workshop at 7:45pm.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Bock to sit for Ms. Bonser.
Mr. Smith explained that this was a workshop session and that no public comment would be allowed.
Mr. Smith read a letter from Mr. Teague, the attorney, in response to a letter that the Board had received from Mr. Mosca where the applicant had said that the Planning Board was in "bad faith." The letter from Mr. Teague stated that it was clearly the intent of the Planning Board to consider public input and information from the applicant. He said that the Planning Board did not have any intention of trying to change the Department of Environmental Services permit. He said that the disorderly environment made things difficult and he said that the Planning Board wanted a retraction. He attached a group of letters which showed that the applicant had voluntarily allowed this process to continue through extensions.
Mr. Teague said that he had received a formal letter from the applicant requesting that a Board member recuse themself from hearing the application. Mr. Smith read the letter asking for Mr. Bock to recuse himself. It read that anyone hearing the application needed to be impartial. Mr. Caron questioned the use of the word "unconditional" in the letter stating it was unlikely the applicant would receive an unconditional approval. Mr. Soltani said that the applicant was not expecting an unconditional approval. He noted Mr. Caron's concern and said that the word had been used in referring to changes made the previous month and he did not mean for it to imply that the application would be approved without conditions. Mr. Teague said that he had not heard anything from anyone that made him think Mr.
Bock could not be fair. Mr. Bock said that he differentiated between his role on the Board of Selectmen and his role of representing them on the Planning Board. He said that he wanted to reassure the applicant that he could be objective. He said that he did not want to recuse himself. Ms. Jones noted that anyone on the Board of Selectmen would have the same issue. Mr. Smith said that he had conversations with Mr. Bock and he said that Mr. Bock had never expressed an opinion either in favor of or against USA Springs. Mr. Soltanii said that the applicant would not pursue the request.
Mr. Teague said that the Planning Board had been trying to put together a final list of questions about the project. He said that the two sides needed to focus on a few big issues. Ms. Copeland said that Mr. Hamill would show the Board what changes had been made to the plan. Mr. Hamill highlighted the changes in the plan for the Board and he said that the applicant would place stones on the property to show the boundary of the turtle nesting area. Mr. Teague asked if there were homeland security regulations that would affect the applicant. Mr. Hamill said that the food processing area needed to be secure. He said that most of the suggestions made by the government involved processes inside the building. Mr. Hamill said that he did not feel a plan sheet for existing conditions would be necessary but
he said that was a decision which was up to the Planning Board. He said that a planned Guard Shack for the property would not cause a back up of traffic on Route 4. He said that the plan was to have the Guard Shack in far enough that several trucks would fit in the space for waiting without being near Route 4. Mr. Bock asked if there would be barbed wire on the property. Mr. Hamill said no. Mr. Delucia said that there would be video surveillance. Mr. Booth said that he was concerned about trucks arriving after the facility had closed for the night and staying there until the morning. Mr. Delucia said that the guard shack would be manned 24 hours. Mr. Smith suggested that the applicant could either move the guard shack beyond the employee parking lot or they could allow trucks onto the property after hours for purposes of turning around only. Mr. Delucia said that the applicant could also put up a sign at the entrance to the
property if it was necessary. Mr. Soltani said that he thought it would be best to leave the guard shack as it was planned. Mr. Caron said that he did not want trucks turning around at night to be a recurring issue. Mr. Soltani agreed and said that no one wanted that. Mr. Smith said that the PET silos should only be 34 ft. He asked for that to be reflected on the plan. Mr. Hamill said that would not be a problem. Ms. Copeland said that she and Mr. Teague had discussed 3 important areas that the Planning Board and applicant needed to address. She said that the first was water quality monitoring, the second was performance guarantees, and the third was what if scenarios and how the parties involved would move forward in the case of an emergency. She also said that she had sent the Board examples of water quality reports that had been done by MyKro Waters. She read the requirements in the Department of Environmental Services
Groundwater Withdrawal Permit which stated that the applicant needed to notify the homeowners of any problems. Mr. Bock said that he thought the Selectmen's Office should get a copy of this information. Mr. Caron agreed. Mr. Soltani suggested that all the information should be sent to a designee of the Board of Selectmen. He said that the applicant would have 12 hours to provide potable water to a person with a problem. Mr. Bock asked what someone should do if they had a problem. Mr. Soltani said that they should call USA Springs or the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Bock asked if USA Springs was prepared to deal with that scenario. Mr. Soltani said that the applicant needed to have contracts proving they could provide 3 things before they started withdrawing water from the ground. Mr. Smith noted that 12 hours without water was a long time. Mr. Soltani said that the applicant would get water to people who
needed it as fast as they could. Mr. Smith noted that people needed water for showers and sinks and not just drinking water. Mr. Soltani said that the applicant needed to provide drinking water within 12 hours and they needed to provide water for showers and other things within 36 hours. Mr. Teague noted that the timeline began when the Department of Environmental Services agreed that there had been an impact on the water. Mr. Soltani said that the Department of Environmental Services did not have any reason to delay. Mr. Teague noted that people could have a problem with their water at 10:00pm on a Friday night before a 3 day weekend. He also said that the Department of Environmental Services did not address water quality, just water quantity. He said that the town needed a response plan from the applicant.
Mr. Gylfphe left the meeting at 9:00pm.
Mr. Teague said that Mr. Soltani had asked that as the applicant discussed response plans with the Planning Board the applicant reserved the right to continue with their established position that they took issue with the authority of the Planning Board on this matter. He said that the discussion which followed needed to be without prejudice to the applicant's position on Planning Board authority. Mr. Soltani said that the applicant had discussed this internally. Mr. Teague said that it was important that both sides remain free to take their legal positions at a later date if necessary. Mr. Caron asked when the jurisdictional issue needed to be decided. Mr. Soltani said that the town and the applicant would enter into an agreement but he said that there could be appeals or other issues at a later time. Mr.
Delucia said that USA Springs had a 2,000 gallon plastic tank on a trailer. He said that the tank would be filled when they got calls of an emergency and they would offer the tank as assistance immediately. He said that the supply of water given to the affected by USA Springs would continue until it was determined what had happened. He said that if it turned out that USA Springs was responsible for the problem they would continue to supply water. He said that the system they would use to get the water into the pipes in the house would depend on the situation. He said that there were factors such as the weather and the system in the house which were part of that. He said that there were many variables involved. Mr. Smith asked if there was a radius of impact. Mr. Soltani said that according to the Department of Environmental Services the zone of impact was 7,000 feet from the wells. He said that the concern was having 180 days
with no water recharge and he said that was the worst case scenario. Mr. Booth asked if people outside the zone were still able to get help. Mr. Delucia said that those cases would need to go through the Department of Environmental Services procedure. He said that presumably USA Springs plant would not be causing problems which were outside the zone of influence and he said that they would probably see evidence within the zone of any problems before anything occurred outside the zone. Mr. Teague asked whether it would be better to continue talking about the response plan or to talk about the quality of the water. He noted that the topics were related. Mr. McLean, from GeoInsight said that the state standards for water quality were more stringent than the federal standards. Mr. Bock asked how someone would know if they had a water quality issue. A representative from USA Springs said that people test the water in their wells regularly. Mr. Teague also noted that there was a
large subdivision near the USA Springs site which had existing monitoring wells. He noted that if they found something people might have information in advance of an impact. Mr. Bock asked where that information would be distributed. Mr. McLean read the sampling plan from 6-24 and he said that detection limits needed to be below the state standards. He said that there needed to be water quality monitoring in April and November at least one year before the bottling facility began their operations and he said that there needed to be monitoring twice per year for 2 years and then monitoring once per year until the permit expired. Mr. Caron asked if the Planning Board should specify a low number so that they had space if there were increases in anything that might create a water quality problem. Mr. McLean said that would only become an issue with toxic compounds. Mr. Caron said that the impact on quality might be closer to contaminant areas
and the impact on quantity might be closer to the plant. A hydrologist from USA Springs said that there had not been any surprises in the pump test. He said that the influence was what they had expected. He said that pumping wells do not affect the natural flow of water. Mr. Smith asked if the water had been tested for age. Mr. Hyatt said no. Mr. Caron suggested that it might be a good idea to have wells 4,000 ft away to use as an early warning system. Mr. Delucia noted that there was a system of aquifers which carried the water underground. Mr. Soltani said that the measuring that the applicant had done was approved by the Department of Environmental Services. He said that the applicants plan to respond to water quality complaints was the same as their plan to respond to water quantity complaints. He said that they would send help until it was determined who was at fault. Mr. McLean said that the applicant was using
the federal recommended guideline to test for radon. Mr. Soltani said that the applicant knew radon existed in the area so they were testing for a baseline number so that they would know if radon was found whether it was in addition to the radon already in the area. He said that was the only way they would know if they might have caused the problem. Mr. Teague noted that the discussion had covered two of the major issues he had suggested discussing. He said that they needed to put the third issue on the table. He asked what kind of security the town would have in a worst case scenario. Mr. Soltani asked if the Planning Board wanted the applicant to make any other changes to the building or anything else on the plan. Ms. Copeland said that she had forwarded some requests from the Nottingham Fire Department. She noted that emergency closure issues were an example of a performance guarantee. Mr. Booth said that anything the
applicant was required to do was part of a performance guarantee. Mr. Caron said that he would not expect USA Springs to clean up things which were not caused by them. Ms. Jones asked if conditions put on the applicant by the Planning Board would carry over in the event of a sale of the property or business. Mr. Soltani said yes. Mr. Smith read out loud a memo from the Building Inspector saying that certain things expected by the previous Building Inspector no longer applied. Mr. Teague said that the notes should be put on a sheet that was 8 1/2 by 11 and then recorded. He said that he felt it would be counterproductive to put the notes on the plan. He said that the Board and the applicant needed to agree to make August 17, 2005 the last chance for public to speak.
Mr. Caron made a motion to make August 17, 2005 the final chance for the public to give input on this project.
Mr. Hyatt noted that the public was sometimes redundant. Mr. Teague said that the public hearing had been going on over a year. He said that the Planning Board was interested in new information. Mr. Bock said that the Planning Board might need to set limits on the amount of time people could speak.
Mr. Booth seconded Mr. Caron's motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Teague said that many people were expecting an up or down vote on August 17, 2005. He said that there should be a clean document when the Planning Board was ready to vote. He said that there would need to be at least one workshop to prepare such a document before a final vote. He said that the Board and the applicant needed time to talk about drafting such a document.
Mr. Booth made a motion to recess the workshop discussion until August 24, 2005 at 7:30pm. Mr. Caron seconded that motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Caron made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:40pm. Ms. Jones seconded the motion. The present members of the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Planning Board Secretary
| 
