PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 18, 2008
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex- Officio; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Merilyn Senter, Alternate. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman and Barry Weymouth were absent.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planner; P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer; and Craig Donais, Planning Board Counsel.
Minutes of June 4, 2008
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the minutes from the June 4, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member in place of B. Weymouth and M. Senter was appointed as a voting member in place of S. Ranlett. It was noted that if either replaced member were to arrive at the meeting the alternate would no longer be a voting member.
A Public Hearing on a site plan review application to show the location of existing vehicle sales area and associated improvements at 89 Newton Road, Tax Map 68, Lot 9 and Tax Map 69, Lot 56 totaling 12 +/- acres and 880 +/- feet of frontage located in the ICR District. ~The owner of record is Maureen N. Leandro.
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present for the application. He explained that he was presenting a plan to improve the used motor vehicle sales portion of an existing salvage yard site. D. Johnson noted the following:
- Additional paving for customer and vehicle display
- Drainage flow and treatment swale
- Retaining wall to level the area
- NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) application for a new curb cut
- Existing building (formerly a store) which will be an office for the used motor vehicle sales
R. Gray noted that the plans indicated that some trees were to be removed.
D. Johnson replied that there were approximately five (5) large pine trees that would be removed.
R. Gray asked if all parking was intended to be paved.
D. Johnson confirmed that it would be.
T. Moore asked if the application was to gain permission to pave the used car parking area.
D. Johnson offered that it would be improving the existing conditions and adding a curb cut.
T. Moore noted that a stockade fence was to be removed in favor of a block wall and there was drainage to be considered. He added that there was still work to be done before the submission of the final site plan.
D. Johnson offered that he was looking for approval of this much of the plan in order to allow the property owner to do the work.
L. Komornick reported that she has received a phone call from an abutter who expressed concern over the needs for a waiver on the well radius. She added that the caller also was concerned with the runoff from the site, noting that they had already been experiencing water problems. L. Komornick further noted that the caller said they were not sure that the survey was accurate and that she informed that caller that if the plans were stamped by a licensed land surveyor there was nothing the Town could do and they would have to file a challenge in civil court. She added that the applicant was looking for a waiver of the engineering review, which, in light of the abutter’s call, was now a concern.
There was a discussion regarding the well and the well radius. It was noted that there was no easement for the well.
D. Johnson explained that he would be designing a new septic as part of the overall amended site plan and a new well would be part of that process. He said that they needed to clear up a few issues with the full site plan and the new septic and well would be included.
L. Komornick noted that requesting approval of a partial site plan amendment was a unique situation. She added that while it was clear that this would be an improvement to the site, she was not recommending having the engineering review waived.
D. Johnson offered that the plan was reviewed and stamped by an engineer for the drainage plan. He said that his fear was that if this plan were to go to CLD for engineering review it would be far more comprehensive than this partial amendment would require.
L. Komornick suggested that if drainage calculations are presented as part of a plan they should be reviewed like they would be for any other plan.
R. Gray noted that they were also requesting a waiver for the siting of off-site structures.
D. Johnson explained that both wells are within each other’s radius, approximately 65-70 feet of each other.
L. Komornick suggested that it would be in the best interests of the Town and the Planning Board to, at a minimum, require a review of the drainage, whether or not it is decided to approve a partial plan, not to be recorded, knowing that the rest of the plan will be coming in.
T. Moore agreed that it would be inappropriate to approve the waiver of the drainage review in light of the retaining wall and the abutter’s concerns.
P. Bealo offered that he could understand the request to waive a full lighting plan for such a small change, but noted that he would like to see what was being proposed.
L. Komornick pointed out that there was a note on the plan stating that the lights would be compliant with the regulations.
P. Bealo said that he would prefer to see the actual fixtures to be used listed as opposed to a recital of the Town’s site plan regulation.
T. Moore offered that he could be comfortable with a drainage review and a list of the lighting fixtures and acknowledged that the intent was to improve the used car sales portion of the property, adding that it would all make sense submitted as part of the full site plan.
L. Komornick suggested that the partial amendment plan be accepted as complete but all other motions be stayed.
T. Moore noted that it was a predicament to have a partial plan presented that will obviously improve conditions on a site, but then there are the logistics of accepting the plan as complete and starting the sixty-five (65) day clock for approval or denial when there isn’t enough information to approve the full site plan.
D. Johnson asked if the lights could be addressed at the time of the occupancy permit.
M. Dorman said that was up to the discretion of the Board.
P. Bealo said that he didn’t want to put the Building Inspector in that position.
T. Moore offered that the best way to proceed would be after, favorable comment is received on the drainage review and lighting plans are obtained, then the Board could act on the amended site plan. He asked if there was any site plan currently on file for this site.
L. Komornick replied that there was not.
T. Moore perhaps the Board could record a consensus to allow the property owner to go forward with the improvements only.
R. Gray asked how they could go forward with improvements without actual approval of a plan.
L. Komornick said that there had been similar precedent set with the Rockingham Church (90 Newton Road) and it would all depend on how comfortable the Board is with that idea.
R. Gray said that it put a lot of responsibility on the Code Enforcement Officer to frequently go out and see what’s going on.
L. Komornick noted this to be a unique situation where there was a large parcel with another well-functioning use of the property (salvage yard), making this a unique situation. She added that it was glitches with the survey work that was holding up the submission of the full plan.
R. Gray offered that he didn’t want to hold up conditional approval but suggested there be a hard line when it came to the submission of the full plan.
M. Senter asked if the handicapped parking space be re-located to the other side of the sale building.
There was discussion of the reason for the current placement of the handicapped space, that being there was more room for it at the current location of the plan.
D. Johnson asked that if the plan goes to CLD for engineering review that they are told that it is a review of the drainage only. It was agreed.
R. Gray moved to accept the partial plan as complete. There was no second to the motion.
D. Johnson asked if the board would allow them to start the improvements.
R. Gray offered that there was no approval to do so.
T. Moore continued the hearing until July 16, 2008.
A Public Hearing on a site plan amendment for a property previously approved for a contractor’s yard (including associated outside storage, office and warehouse space), and future tenant spaces for tradesmen and others utilizing a mix of office and warehouse space. ~The proposal is to reassign a portion of the existing building(s) and site for the manufacture of concrete building panels, and another portion for refurbishing mechanical equipment and the fabrication and assembly of mechanical equipment (including storage, office space, and warehouse/commercial space for both uses). ~~~The property is located in the industrial zone at 144 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lots 12 and 13, totaling 37+/- acres. ~The owner of record is Testa Realty, LLC.
Present for the application were: Charlie Zilch, SEC and Associates; Attorney Bernard Campbell, Beaumont and Campbell, PA; Attorney Stephen Chicatelli, Massachusetts Counsel for Testa Corp.; Abdi Behjat, CEO Testa Corp.; Dan Shields, property manager for Testa Corp. at 144 Main Street; Jason Hensley, Fabcon (proposed tenant); and John Green, Green Machine (proposed tenant).
B. Campbell offered a history of the site back to the operations of Process Engineering, who operated three full shifts, with 500 employees at its peak, and had significant truck traffic of approximately 40-60 trucks per day. He continued that the site was reduced in size until Chart became the owners about 5-6 years ago when operations wound down. Testa Corp. (Testa) purchased the property last year and had looked to base its New Hampshire operations of its large construction company, currently located in Wakefield, MA, at this site. It was noted that Testa’s business is large-scale demolition projects. B. Campbell explained Testa’s approved use of the site to include storage of heavy equipment, non-motorized trailers, adding that the site plan approval included future tenant use of a portion of the
building. Mr. Campbell noted that it had been Testa’s intention last fall to have a more aggressive use of the property but now they see more opportunity for tenant use and less presence of their own business and they were looking to amend the site plan.
B. Campbell reminded that the current use of the site was as a contractor’s yard with the parking of heavy equipment, concrete barriers and the like. He said that the proposal would be to remove Testa presence on the site from large areas and replace them with Fabcon. Testa would maintain the large dry storage areas.
B. Campbell offered the following information regarding Fabcon:
- A Minnesota based company that constructs prefab concrete panels, with reinforced steel and insulation, for industrial/retail construction
- Operations in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania
- The panels are sent out to fill orders or stored to fill future orders
- Fabcon would occupy 79,000-80,000 sq ft of the building using the larger bay doors and 5100 sq ft of the office space
- Materials that are stored are gravel, sand and cement (the powder form of concrete) all in a dry state
- Everything would be mixed inside the building
- Three (3) silos (on concrete pads) would be added to accommodate storage of materials
- The slabs would be stored outside to be cured
- Water use will be addressed by the existing wells (It was noted that they are in the Aquifer Protection District (APD) and would not be allowed to drill a new well)
- Water used on the site will be recycled to remove the solids and then re-used as part of the production process. When the water can no longer be recycled it will be trucked offsite. All solids will be properly disposed of offsite
- The site plan notes from the original approval are carried forward to this amended plan
- Fabcon would use the non-motorized storage area for curing the panels; all wetlands would be protected and bollards maintained as per the previously approved plan
- Fabcon would employ 25 full and part time employees initially, but could rise to as many as 100 employees in the future
- There will be 4-6 small trucks used as part of the business and 40-50 larger trucks moving equipment and panels as well as for deliveries of materials
B. Campbell offered the following information regarding Green Machine:
- Green Machine is a Hampstead, NH, based company that refurbishes heavy equipment for resale
- They would occupy 32,000 sq ft of the bay areas and 4200 sq. ft. of the office space
- There would be 15-20 full and part time employees
- The business uses 1-2 small delivery vehicles and 1-2 larger trucks, up to about five (5) times a week.
B. Campbell offered the following information regarding Testa:
- Testa’s presence would be reduced to 19,000 sq. ft in the rear of the building
- There would be 10 full and part time employees at this site
- 4-5 large vehicles entering/leaving the site on a daily basis
B. Campbell offered responses to questions that he anticipated the Board would have regarding the site with the following:
- There would still be use of inside fuel storage tanks, some to be used by Fabcon and Testa would still be using some, all subject to the Fire Chief’s approval
- Both Fabcon and Green Machine anticipate possible future rail spur use for delivery of materials and shipping of finished product therefore there is no plan to discontinue the rail spur
B. Campbell noted that they were seeking approval of the amended site plan, noting that the waivers being requested were the same as those previously approved for Testa.
It was suggested that the waivers be delayed until after discussion and that the opportunity for questions be divided between those regarding Green Machine and those for Fabcon
C. Zilch suggested that the Board consider taking jurisdiction of the plan before discussion.
B. Campbell agreed, noting that the plan should be complete enough.
L. Komornick disagreed, suggesting that the question of the truck traffic should trigger a traffic study since just one of the potential occupants is proposing 40-50 trucks per day.
B. Campbell explained that not all the trucks would be 18-wheelers; some may be 10-wheel. He added that currently traffic is restricted to left turns only out of the site, to keep traffic out of the Village District area, and that would be maintained as part of the amended plan. Mr. Campbell reminded that historical use of the site included significant truck traffic and this would be consistent with that former use.
P. Bealo noted that it had not been the use in the past year (period of grand-fathering of a use).
B. Campbell agreed that it had not been the case for the last year, but it was as recent as six (6) years ago, prior to downsizing. He reminded the Board that it had been difficult to get Planning Board approval of use of this site.
C. Zilch reminded that Testa was approved for 30-40 trucks per day at full operations.
Discussion about potential tenant Green Machine
T. Moore opened discussions regarding Green Machine with a question about a note on the plan that says there will be office/commercial use. He asked if that meant they intended to have a retail presence on the site.
B. Campbell said that they did not and the reference was to the office space. He added that all purchases are made online or through a distributor process, there are no customer drive-ins. B. Campbell explained that they rehabilitate large pieces of machinery, such as compactors and they are re-sold by description. He added that they eventually may seek to construct their own equipment as well.
P. Bealo offered that he didn’t see this as a “light” industrial use, which is the use allowed in the district, but as more of a “heavy” industrial use.
B. Campbell suggested that “heavy” industrial use would be such operations as steel mills and auto manufacturers, industries usually seen in Detroit and Pittsburgh, not the bringing in of one or two pieces of equipment, rehabilitating it and then reselling that piece.
P. Bealo offered that “light” industry to him implied smaller goods directly to the consumer. He noted that he had looked at definitions for light industrial in other New Hampshire towns and didn’t find any much better than Plaistow’s.
B. Campbell countered that he saw “heavy” industrial as large quantities of raw materials and discharging smoke stacks. He reminded that everything in this operation was made inside the building so there would be little to no manufacturing noise. Mr. Campbell noted that if the Board decided that this was a heavy industrial use then he would go back and assemble some information, adding that he felt that the size of what was being manufactured was being looked at as the determining factor versus the intensity of the manpower used.
T. Moore opened the floor to questions from the gallery.
During the course of the public hearing the following list of abutters expressed their concerns on the record regarding both tenants:
Vendata Dumas-Griffith, 148 Main Street
Jill Senter, 7 Maple Ave
Dr. James Vitale, 161 Main Street
Pam Burns, 167 Main Street
Dennis Marcotte, 165 Main Street
Madeline Marcotte, 165 Main Street
Rick Marino, 6 Sweet Hill Road
Roberta Kirlis, 134 Main Street
Chris Kirlis, 134 Main Street
Tom Campo, 156 Main Street
Dennis Marcotte (son), 165 Main Street
Carolyn Valley, 180 Main Street
Dick Hawkins, 130 Main Street
David Dube, 169 Main Street (letter)
Michelle Curran, 17 Kelley Road
Harry Birmingham, 3 Tamarack Road
The list of concerns that were expressed is as follows (these concerns applied to both tenants):
- Amount of truck traffic going through a predominantly residential section of town, numerous suggestions of a traffic study were made
- Traffic of employees who do not live in the neighborhood/Town and who speed in and out of the site and up the road
- Damage to the roadways and Town’s right-of-way
- Noise: manufacturing, trucks moving materials around the site and truck traffic entering and leaving the site, particularly if there are to be 24 hour operations
- Possible contamination of air and ground water
- Potential contamination caused by the loading/unload and use of dangerous materials such as concrete powder (Fabcon) and the potential health hazardous to the general public as well as the children at Pollard School
- Environmental Impact, numerous suggestions for an environmental impact study were made
- Proximity to Pollard School and residential dwellings – has the school department been consulted
- Impact to residential property values
- Absentee landlord and out-of-state tenants not caring about the Town
- Water usage and discharge and the effect on the residential abutting wells both from the perspective of contamination and capacity
- Potential damage to the APD
- What was the railroad’s position on the potential use of the spur and would the use of the railroad mean that the trains would be stopping more frequently and idling, causing additional noise and fumes
- Does the fact that uses that used to be permitted but are no longer and have been discontinued on the site for more than one year mean that there is no grandfathering for those now non-compliant uses
- Are there oils or solvents used in the rehabilitation process of the machinery handled by Green Machine – is the machinery pressure washed
- Potential damage to the character of the neighborhood and the ability of people to walk the street in safety, particularly with children and pets
- Potential of additional traffic to impact emergency response time
- Proper disposal of waste materials
- Enforcement issues with trying to keep the doors closed to reduce the noise from the manufacturing process
- 24/7 hours of operation
- How materials are added to the storage silos and removed for processing and the potential for noise from the equipment
- Whether or not this is actually a “light” industrial use
Rebuttal comments are noted throughout the remainder of these minutes.
T. Moore reminded that the initial approval was for Testa and 3-4 tenants who met agreed-upon criteria that were listed in the notes on the plan. He added that any tenants who didn’t meet the criteria would trigger a return to the Board for plan review.
P. Bealo questioned if Green Machine would be painting equipment as part of their refurbishing process.
B. Campbell noted that there was a painting area as part of the Process Engineering/Chart operations.
P. Bealo offered that this was not Process Engineering or Chart and he was asking questions related to operations that were proposed for the site today.
L. Komornick noted that paint booths were prohibited in the APD and that she didn’t think that NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) would approve it either, reminding that the site was under a Ground Water Management Plan (GWMP).
B. Campbell responded that he would explore that issue and seek relief as needed.
L. Komornick noted for the Board that the staff report recommended that this plan not be accepted as complete, noting that the original application was for a minor site plan review for new tenants. She added that she felt the nature of the tenants should trigger a traffic review and an environmental impact study. L. Komornick noted that the applicant did not approach staff in the Planning Office to discuss anything about these proposed tenants and did not request a preliminary hearing, so none of these issues were identified prior to this public hearing and therefore she was strongly recommending that this plan not be accepted as complete.
The chairman called for a break at 8:05 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:20 p.m.
T. Moore offered that it was the consensus of the Board that there would be no decisions made this evening and the amended site plan would not be accepted as complete. He noted that they would continue with the discussion to see if any other concerns would be identified and the end result of this evening would be that this public hearing would be continued to another meeting.
B. Campbell offered that neither tenant has contacted the railroad regarding use of the spur but they didn’t want to abandon the possibility.
B. Campbell explained the types of machines that Green Machine might take in to rehabilitate and potentially build unit themselves in the future. He listed conveyors, compactors, materials handling equipment, balers, cardboard and car crushers and like equipment.
J. Green noted that they also refurbished equipment used in the recycling industry, reconditioning equipment and bringing it up to OSHA standards. He noted they either purchased the equipment and refurbished it for re-sale; or rehabilitated client-owned piece. He noted that there were no solvents used and nothing more than 20 gallons in hydraulic oils were used, adding it was illegal to have more than the 20 gallons. Mr. Green added that he has not shipped by rail in the past but as Mr. Campbell had stated he didn’t want to abandon the possibility. He noted that the equipment that they refurbished was smaller than the cryogenic tanks that used to be made by Process Engineering.
There was discussion as to how the machines were delivered to the business for refurbishing and how they were then delivered to the customers.
P. Bealo asked if there would be a machine shop on the site.
J. Green replied that they generally outsourced that work as it was cheaper, he added that they didn’t do any flame cutting on the site either. Mr. Green noted that the main appeal of this site was the existing cranes in the bay area.
It was also noted that the machinery was not pressure washed.
J. Green offered that his waste oils are picked up by a contractor who uses them for heating fuels. He noted that he has been operating in Hampstead for fourteen (14) years without incident or complaint. He explained that they do have grinders that are occasionally used but nothing of the scale that used to be used by Chart.
R. Gray added there could be a note added to the plan that would require the doors to remain closed at all times.
P. Bealo offered that it would take a lot of enforcement manpower from both the Police and Building Inspector to monitor that.
B. Campbell noted that Green Machine was proposed to be located in the center of the building.
T. Moore added that it was within the Board’s purview to restrict the hours of operation to not permit 24/7 operations.
J. Green noted that his work day generally ended at 4:30.
T. Moore explained that once the hours were set on the site plan any changes to them would require that they come back to the Planning Board.
Discussion about potential tenant Fabcon
It should be noted that the list of abutters and concerns were the same for Fabcon as were for Green Machine
P. Bealo suggested that copies of the plans be made available to the Planning Office for residents to come in and take a look at.
S. Chicatelli agreed to have plans provided.
J. Hensley noted the hours of operation for Fabcon were two (2) shifts: 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
N. Morin asked if trucks would be entering and leaving the site during all these hours.
J. Hensley responded that the trucks would be mostly during the daytime shift, adding that there would be trucks moving around the site during both shifts.
N. Morin asked if there were beepers on those yard trucks.
J. Hensley replied that they were required by OSHA.
R. Gray noted that there could be approximately as many as 150 to 300 trips to/from the site that there definitely needed to be a traffic impact study completed. He asked if the possibility to access Route 125 from Joanne Drive had been explored.
B. Campbell replied that they had not since that property was not owned by Testa; it had been retained by the previous owner.
R. Gray asked what remained as solids when the water was recycled.
J. Hensley offered that what would be left would be cement, sand and rock. He noted the difference between cement, that being the gray powder, and concrete, which is the powder mixed with water and sand/gravel and allowed to harden. He noted the only potential issue with the waste water that is trucked off the site is the pH level.
P. Bealo noted that imbalanced pH in water can be caustic.
There was a discussion about the JDAR system that was used to recycle the water.
R. Gray added that the Town, and probably NHDES, would want to know whether or not the water being trucked off the site was hazardous.
J. Hensley noted that an environmental company takes the readings on the water and whether or not it would be considered hazardous would depend on how hazardous was defined.
P. Bealo questioned if there was an environmental engineer on Fabcon’s staff.
M. Senter asked if the only access to/from that site would be from Main Street.
B. Campbell noted that it was and it was over the defined right-of-way.
M. Senter reminded that it was all residential through that section.
B. Campbell noted that all trucks would be required to make a left turn out of the site to proceed to Route 125.
M. Senter asked how large the panels were that were transported.
J. Hensley replied that they were 12 feet wide by 45-50 feet long.
P. Bealo noted that the website stated that some panels were 100 feet long.
J. Hensley offered that the website was incorrect and explained that the panels were manufactured at much longer length and cut to the shorter length for transporting.
M. Senter offered that this would be a project of regional impact and the applicant should be asked to go to RPC (Rockingham Planning Commission).
T. Moore suggested that RPC be consulted to see if this business would qualify for regional impact review.
There was a discussion regarding the size of the trucks that would be entering and leaving the site.
L. Komornick asked what the material was that made up the insulated cores of the panels.
J. Hensley explained that it was similar to packing foam one might find in appliance packaging.
L. Komornick suggested that the project might need NHDES approval because of the GWMP that is in effect and she noted that she would be doing her due diligence and discuss the matter with them.
B. Campbell offered that he could see the need if there was going to be onsite water disposal.
L. Komornick reminded that there was a note that prohibited washing equipment.
B. Campbell replied it was his recollection that applied to outside washing of equipment.
T. Moore noted that it would be within the NHDES jurisdiction if there was outside activities.
L. Komornick questioned what would happen with the pavement on the site, particularly in light of the number of trucks that would be negotiating the site.
B. Campbell responded that Testa was obligated to fix the potholes and repave the existing pavement.
L. Komornick reminded that was for Testa’s use and that she couldn’t see how that would be adequate with 40-50 18-wheeler trucks using the site.
R. Gray added that he thought that the driveway would need to be brought up to standards for the use as well, suggesting that it should be completely reclaimed.
L. Komornick reminded that reclaiming the pavement would trigger NHDES review under the GWMP.
B. Campbell noted that the maintenance of the property would be reviewed using the original notes and it was his recollection that the Board had already discussed what could and couldn’t be done.
L. Komornick suggested that the Town’s Engineer look at a cross-section of the driveway since this is a big change from Testa.
T. Moore offered that he had a feeling that 40-50 trucks per day was going to have considerable and expensive impact and that the applicant should somehow find a way to gain access to Route 125 via Joanne Drive. He added that it wouldn’t make the people on Joanne Drive happy and would probably be a costly endeavor but he still felt that it was in the best interest of the Town and the majority of residents. T. Moore noted that if it were 40-50 FedEx trucks that would be different, but these are much larger trucks. He added that traffic on Main Street is substantially more now than it was during the peak operations of Process Engineering. T. Moore suggested that bringing the access to Route 125 via Joanne Drive would make this a much more viable project.
L. Komornick noted that another substantial change that had happened since the days of Process Engineering was the adoption of the Village District Center and specific traffic calming features, such as a roundabout, that would make it less attractive to truck traffic.
P. Bealo offered that he still didn’t have a clear answer as to whether or not this use fit what he would consider a “light” industrial use. He reiterated that manufacturing 300 foot lengths of cement panels and then cutting those to shorter lengths seemed more to a “medium” or “heavy” industrial use, particularly in light of near 24 hour operations and the level of disturbance to the neighborhood. He noted that he was on the fence with Green Machine and whether or not it was “light” industrial use.
L. Komornick reminded that as of July 1, 2008, the Shoreline Protection Act would be in effect for Little River and suggested that how that affects this project should be considered.
L. Komornick asked if the finishing was done on the site.
J. Hensley answered that it was done as part of the inside processing. He added that the different textures were done as part of the finishing process and no painting would be done on the site. Mr. Hensley noted that different rocks were added to the concrete as part of the finishing and the rocks were not glued on.
There was discussion regarding the storing of the raw materials.
T. Moore asked about the height of the silos.
B. Campbell responded that Fabcon was aware of the Town’s height restrictions.
J. Hensley noted that materials are pumped into the silos and there is a conveyor system inside for the aggregate bins. He added that this business was seasonal in nature and they would not be operating or trucking at peak capacity year round.
C. Zilch offered that he was comfortable with the ability for the existing well to accommodate the use on the site.
L. Komornick suggested that NHDES be consulted, since this was the only well they would be allowed on the site.
B. Campbell said that they would be testing the well capacity.
There was discussion regarding the water capacity and process usage on the site.
There was discussion of other Fabcon facilities and how they would compare to a Plaistow facility.
There was additional discussion regarding the JDAR system and how it functioned. There was also additional discussion of the condition of the driveway.
There was some discussion as to whether or not this was an amendment to the site plan or a new site plan.
Some of the abutters related their experiences with business in this field and cautioned about the exposure to the concrete powder and the non-reversibility if inhaled as well as the noise issue, which was likened to standing next to a jet plane engine.
B. Campbell offered that he wasn’t going to respond to all the comments at this meeting at this time and he would work with staff on an action list. He reminded that the site was zoned for industrial use by the Board’s predecessors and was suitable for railroad uses. He added that the owner had the right to develop the property and he would hope that an accommodation could be reached.
There was a discussion of issues that would need to be addressed in order for the amended site plan to be accepted as complete noting the following:
- Detailed traffic study
B. Campbell noted that they would include the seasonal nature in the study
L. Komornick reminded that Route 121A was a State road so both Town and State should be consulted and she suggested there be a scoping meeting regarding whether or not a new driveway permit would be needed.
R. Gray added that it should be considered that at least two (2) Board members expressed very strong opinions that access to Route 125 via Joanne Drive should be carefully considered. He added he didn’t see why Chart would want to hold on to the land-locked property.
B. Campbell asked if the Board of Selectmen could be counted on to give good consideration to roadway construction.
R. Gray said that he wouldn’t count on that happening.
- Dust control issues, including deliveries, processing and cutting
- Detail issues on the silo construction
- Questions about the condition and repair of the pavement and impact of the GWMP
- Amount of water used in processing
- Whether or not there would be a paint booth
- Traffic on site, Fabcon specifically and blended with all uses
- Disposal of waste water and residual materials and whether or not it is hazardous in nature - Cross-referenced with NHDES requirements
- Information regarding potential railroad usage
- Whether or not there is a need for additional NHDES permitting, particularly with reference to the GWMP
- Noise mitigation and hours of operation
B. Campbell offered that the hours of operation were what they were.
M. Curran suggested that would not be true if the Board decided not to permit the listed hours.
B. Campbell offered that they could look into ways to abate noise during operational hours.
L. Komornick added that she felt the bigger issues with this site were the hazmat concerns. She reminded that the original agreement with the Town was with Testa and now they would not be the primary user, which would now be Fabcon. L. Komornick suggested that the change was significant enough to trigger the engineering review, adding that it seemed that the use went from a light to a heavy/medium review. She added there was a lot of work that needed to be done between meetings and that the applicant would need to establish an escrow account to cover both engineering reviews but also legal consultation.
T. Moore questioned what would be reviewed by the engineers, noting the only physical change to the site was the proposed addition of the silos.
L. Komornick suggested that it wasn’t necessarily just the silos, but the pavement load bearing and the usage of the site.
M. Dorman offered that the Board might be able to require that under the easement that the right-of-way be brought up to Class V standard but he wasn’t sure they could do a Class V parking lot.
L. Komornick responded that because the property was located in the APD extra precautions could be required.
M. Dorman added that he thought the more important initial question to be resolved is the use and whether or not it is allowable, suggesting everything else is premature until that is resolved.
T. Moore agreed, noting that if it’s decided that the use is not appropriate then the rest is a waste.
There was a discussion regarding noise and how to quantify it and what threshold makes it a nuisance. Issues that have arisen with ProBark since their noise study were noted.
M. Senter noted that it would be difficult to conduct a noise study on a use that doesn’t yet exist in that environment.
There was discussion as to whether or not this was a “light” industrial use or something more intensive.
P. Bealo noted that was still far from resolved in his mind.
Some residents noted that they didn’t begrudge Testa the right to develop their site but didn’t want to have their rights or health and safety impacted by their doing so. It was also suggested that even, though vague, the “noxious uses” ordinance (Article V, §220-5) comes into play whenever residents rights would be affected.
L. Komornick questioned why their needed to be 24 hour operations.
J. Hensley responded that the processing and curing times required that there-by the noted hours.
Residents noted that when Process Engineering was operational that because of the summer heat the doors were always left open, leading to a noise problem and they frequently had to call the police to intervene.
R. Gray offered that while he didn’t live on Main Street he did understand the loud noises that could come from an industrial use. He reminded that the Board was obligated to try and work with the applicant within the ordinances.
P. Bealo reiterated his concerns regarding the pH and hazardous characteristics of the water being trucked off the site.
B. Campbell offered that would be part of a Hazmat review. He added that he now had enough material to work with.
T. Moore stated that the public hearing was continued to July 16, 2008.
Review of status of construction projects and final conditions including the following:
~~~~A. Status of Rite Aid Conditionally approved plans re: road layout and setback issues;
L. Komornick updated the Board on the progress of the conditionally approved Rite Aid site plan. She explained that the developer, NHDOT and the Town had come to an agreement that Garden Road needed to be continued to reconnect to Route 125, which had previously been discontinued at Town Meeting and now would have to be re-established as a town road. She noted that this now established a new property line and caused a setback issue for the Rite Aid building. She wanted the Board to know that they had sent them directly to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to seek relief instead of having them come back to this board to be sent to the ZBA.
OTHER BUSINESS
L. Komornick reported on her attendance at a Newton, NH, planning board meeting where water use of a new development was discussed. She noted that there was the potential of impact to abutting Plaistow neighborhoods.
There was discussion whether or not the Town should file as interveners, even if action was not necessary at this time, to preserve standing in the future. It was advice of C. Donais that the paperwork at least be submitted to preserve the Town’s rights as an abutter.
T. Moore gave an explanation of the project, an eighty-unit 55+ housing development and the actions of Hampstead Water as owner/operator for this project.
There was discussion regarding required Testa to escrow monies to cover legal fees that would be incurred as part of their amended plan review. It was noted that no legal fee monies escrowed as yet, but that there would be for future expenses.
P. Bealo reminded the Board that the clock was running out to make application for a grant with reference to the new workforce housing legislation. He stressed that he felt it was important to be proactive in this matter to make sure that Plaistow didn’t experience the same kinds of issues experienced when Massachusetts enacted similar laws.
T. Moore suggested whether or not the Town should make application for the grant would be dependent on what the grant could be used for. He suggested that if it covered the review process and determination of what impact there could be for the Town then it might be worth it, but if it was to write ordinances it might be premature for the Town’s needs at this time.
P. Bealo added that he felt the potential impact to the Town could be far worse than that of the Elderly Housing Ordinance.
R. Gray moved, second by M. Senter, to adjourn the meeting at 11:33 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
