HOLDERNESS ZONING BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
HOLDERNESS, NH 03264
July 13, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT Mr. Bass, Mr. Rothchild, Ms. DiCosola,
Mr. Lyon, Mrs. Webster
OTHERS PRESENT Mrs. Bownes – Secretary for the Board
CALL TO ORDER Mr. Bass called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mrs. Webster recused herself from the proceedings.
MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Ms. DiCosola to table the minutes of the previous meeting to the meeting to be held on July 14, 2004. Vote was unanimous.
PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Bass again explained the process for the continued
Case #277-05, Tax Map proceedings.
222-23, Pemi Fish & Game
Club Town of Holderness
Agent - Continuation Marie Roderick, and Russell Roderick, abutters read a letter and distributed a copy to the Board. She said that when they bought their property they did not know there was a gun club next door and that excavation was ongoing, and had they known, they would not have bought the property. She stated she is opposed to the project. Is concerned about her health as she has asthma and is also concerned about lead. She stated that they oppose the special permit for a gravel permit as it is detrimental to health, etc.
Mr. Alex Ray, Beedy Road, spoke in opposition to the project, noting that he was aware of the Fish and Game Club at the time. He said that it has grown and he has been excepting of that. He said that in 1998 there was considerable trucking and dust and again he was accepting of that. Mr. Ray stated that now once again there is the desire to reactivate the removal of gravel from the location. He said that this time however, the objectives have changed. Mr. Ray said that he enjoys his location because of the rural and scenic nature of the road. He stated that the area is used for a variety of things including school activities, horseback riding, etc. He said he is speaking to preserve the scenic, rural nature of this road.
Mr. Martin, abutter, read and distributed a letter outlining his concerns to the Board. Attorney Puffer stated that Mr. Martin was suppose to be a representative of the abutters and go on a view of the property with Mr. Rothchild and upon arriving was told that he could not go on a view of the property.
Mr. Bass said that it was not set up as a view of the property, but rather to ride in one of the town trucks along the road to get a feel for the size of the trucks. Atty. Puffer advised that this showed a bias against the abutters, as he was not allowed to go on that ride.
Mr. Rothchild said that the truck only holds 2 people and this is why he could not go. He emphasized that this view of the property was not a public meeting.
Atty. Puffer said that another issue is that there is a bias on the part of Mr. Rothchild and they renew their objection to Mr. Rothchild sitting on this case.
Atty. Wah asked why the fact that 2 people can fit in the truck indicate bias. Atty. Puffer said that a procedure had been set up whereby a ZBA member was to go on the ride and that procedure was not followed. Atty. Puffer said this was set up by the Chair of the ZBA. Mr. Bass said that this was not the case. Atty. Puffer said that this should have been rescheduled. Atty. Wah said that one member of the Board is not a quorum. Atty. Puffer said there was a ride with a member of the ZBA with a representative of the applicant.
Atty. Cooper inquired as to how that individual was asked to go on the ride. Mr. Bass said Ms. Messenger had asked if it was possible for a member of the abutters to go on the ride.
Ms. Messenger, said that she had asked to go on the ride and was told by Mr. Rothchild if her Atty. said it was okay she could go and Mr. Martin showed up, representing the abutters and was not allowed to go.
Atty. Puffer said that the concern is that a member of the ZBA went on a meeting by himself with a representative of the application and we think this is improper.
Mr. Rothchild emphasized that the ride was not a meeting.
Atty. Cooper stated that his recollection at the Fish and Game Club was that the truck wasn’t there and one member of the Board said he would be interested in driving the route and the other members of the Board said they were not interested in doing this and told him to go ahead if he wanted to.
Mr. Bass said that the truck driver was not a member of the Board of Selectmen.
Atty. Spector, Mitchell & Bates, stated that she prepared a summary of the goings on during the trip and she is willing to submit it for the record if this will ease people’s minds as to what occurred on that ride.
Mr. Rothchild said that when the trip was over, he stopped and wanted to talk with Mr. Martin, but Mr. Martin refused and sped off in his vehicle.
Mr. Barbera said he was there and witnessed the conversation and there was a request made by Ms. Messenger and the Selectmen responded absolutely not and then Mr. Bass got involved and agreed and then the Selectmen agreed. Mr. Barbera said that the truck would hold 3 individuals. Mr. Barbera commented that people do not remember truthfully what went on. Mr. Rothchild asserted that the truck would only hold 2 people.
Mrs. Farrell asked if minutes were kept of that ride and will they be made part of the record for these proceedings. Mr. Bass said the Board does not keep minutes of a walk over. He said that a walk over is basically for viewing the site and is not reported upon, however, the information is used during deliberations, which are public.
Mr. Ray stated that he understood that Atty. Puffer had simply wanted to enter into the minutes this occurrence, but not belabor the proceedings.
Atty. Wah stated that he sees no reason for the Board to take any action on this item at this time.
Mr. Martin, abutter, stated that at a meeting on 6-22-00 there was a petition with 60 signatures submitted. He distributed a copy of the petition and the minutes stating that the petition was turned in.
Mr. Martin stated that this location has never been a gravel pit and permission was never obtained to run a gravel pit.
Mr. Martin stated that as far as he knows everything in the area is rural and not commercial.
Mr. Martin disputed the amount of trips that will be made per hour from the site.
Mr. Martin stated that this has been compared to logging operations that are short lived and he disputes that this operation will be short lived.
Mr. Martin commented that this amount and type of truck travel is harder on the roads than logging travel is.
Mr. Martin entered into the record a personal statement regarding his opposition to the project.
Mr. Martin said that the homeowners in the area are hopeful that the town will defend their rights to the peaceful nature of the neighborhood.
Mr. Martin said that the homeowners moved to the rural residential neighborhood by choice, not by default and he is asking the ZBA to help protect the neighbors and their children from that which they attempted to escape.
Mr. Martin displayed pictures of the road as it is now used.
Mr. Martin distributed and reviewed excerpts from the Master Plan of 1994.
Mr. Bass commented that at town meeting there was a vote in favor of the project.
Mr. Bass stated that one point is that the special exception does go with the land and the Board is very aware that any conditions placed on any possible approval also go with the land.
Mr. Martin submitted the document titled “Statement for Preserving Our Neighborhood” to become part of the record.
Mr. Martin said that this proposal is not really an essential, but rather something nice to have in some people’s opinion.
Mr. Martin submitted a document relative to the burden of proof to the Board.
Mr. Martin submitted “Other Points to Consider” to the Board to become part of the record.
Mr. Martin submitted the document titled “Comparative Cases in the State of New Hampshire” to the Board to become part of the record.
Mr. Martin submitted the document titled “Noise” to the Board to become part of the record.
Mr. Bass asked if Mr. Martin’s windows shook the last time that a crusher was operated at the site and Mr. Martin confirmed this.
Mrs. Farrell pointed out that the vote at town meeting was in favor of negotiations continuing, not an approval of the project.
Mrs. Farrell asked that the Board review the minutes of the Town Meeting relative to the vote being referred to.
Mr. Martin submitted the document titled “Comments from Phil Arel from Guilford per telephone interview 5/16/04” to become part of the record.
Mr. Martin submitted a copy of the newspaper article titled “Gilford asks voters to ok sale of land” printed in the Citizen on March of 2004 to become part of the record.
Atty. Cooper stated that this whole presentation is a heresy statement, which is irrelevant to the proceedings.
Mr. Bass said the point being raised is that the financial sensibility is not an issue for the Board to consider.
Atty. Puffer said that they couldn’t agree more, but the application in this case, did site the fact that there would be a financial savings to the town and this is what the presentation is in response to.
Mr. Martin showed photographs of various local gravel pits depicting the dust that is created and pointed out that these are located on paved roads. This photographic exhibit was submitted to the Board to become part of the record.
Mr. Messenger of Beedy Road spoke in opposition to living in the vicinity of a gravel pit and submitted his comments to the Board.
Mr. Miller said that with regard to the photographs, this is a public way and in all the pictures there is someone in the middle of the road. He commented that in a public way this seems unusual to him.
Ms. Packard of the Conservation Commission stated that the Board was in receipt of Larry Spencer’ summary. She stated that she was concerned with the lead issue. She stated that on public radio recently they did a showcase on lead contamination and the health effects from it. She stated that there is no such thing as a minimum exposure to lead. She asked what types of tests have been performed on this property.
Mr. Bass said that there has been no testimony that any tests have been done. She stated that the Conservation Commission has recommended this testing be done.
Mr. Bass asked Ms. Packard what degree of setback would the Conservation Commission feel would be totally acceptable to protect the seasonal run off and wetland areas. Ms. Packard stated that in her opinion, it should be well within 25’ from the top of the slope so that there would be adequate protection. She said that the law states 25’.
Atty. Spector inquired if Ms. Packard is speaking for the Conservation Commission or for herself. She stated that she was offering her opinion.
Mrs. Farrell said that they had an unfortunate incident on the road after the last meeting (a fire) and during that unfortunate incident, there were a lot of fire trucks that responded. She advised that there were statements made by a fireman that the road was too narrow to have 2 trucks on it at the same time. She stated that if in fact there was added traffic by the addition of this operation, this is another safety issue to be considered.
Atty. Puffer said he would like to speak in opposition and summarize the testimony that has been offered. Mr. Bass said he would be provided that opportunity.
At 8:10 p.m. a recess was called by Mr. Bass.
At 8:25 p.m. Mr. Bass reconvened the meeting.
Atty. Spector, representing the Applicant stated that with regard to the bond and enforcement issues, the Selectmen would be in the authority to enforce any conditions. The Excavation will be done by the Highway department, which is normally overseen by the Selectmen and therefore this is not out of the ordinary.
With regard to the bonding issue, Atty. Spector stated that the town would be the bonded and the bonded party. She stated that the town assures the Board that the area will be reclaimed.
Atty. Spector submitted a letter dated July 13, 2004 relative to the Town of Holderness Application for Special Application and the issues relating to bonding and enforcement items.
Mr. Bass asked if the Fish and Game club terminated the contract, what effect would the town bond have. Atty. Spector stated that in this case if the lease were terminated, the permit and obligation would still remain. She stated that if the special exception is limited to the town then the town would be in a position to enter the property and do the reclamation.
Atty. Wah said that a special exception runs with the land but the excavation permit would not.
Atty. Spector stated that at the last meeting the abutters raised numerous concerns. She stated that many of these items were addressed at the previous meeting and in letters already submitted. She said that she would not review these again, however, she would address other items raised.
Atty. Spector distributed a letter dated July 13, 2004 regarding Town of Holderness Application for Special Exception, Town’s Response to Abutters Concerns. Atty. Spector submitted photographs of the town trucks and the Ambrose trucks. She stated that the town trucks are driven by town employees. She stated that the town only has 2 trucks and is willing to limit truck traffic to times when the school buses are not on the roads and is also willing to limit the amount of trips.
Mr. Rothchild asked what the ground rules would be for subcontractors. Atty. Spector said the same conditions would apply whether it is town or subcontractor.
Atty. Spector said that trucks would not be lined up waiting to remove the material.
Atty. Spector said that the number of truck trips would remain the same.
With regard to dust and degradation of the roads. Atty. Spector said a wetting truck will be used and the town’s public works director is not concerned about road degradation.
Ms. DiCosola asked what the difference in width between the Ambrose the and town trucks is and Atty. Spector advised that the town truck is 6 – 8” narrower
Atty. Spector explained the differences between the prior excavation and the planned excavation. She said that the prior excavation was large and the intent was to expand the shooting range. She stated that a gravel pit is an acceptable use. Atty. Spector said that the material will be hauled by smaller vehicles and is subject to RSA 155E.
Atty. Spector stated that RSA 155E also addresses a number of issues raised by the abutters.
Atty. Spector said that a smaller crusher will be used and will be on the property two weeks every other year.
Atty. Spector said there are no plans to increase this.
Mr. Bass said that 20,000 yards over 10 years is planned to be removed. He said that phase I is shown at 50,000 yards and phase II is 40,000 yards and phase III is 50,000 yards therefore, 80 years would be needed to accomplish the project.
Atty. Spector stated that it is a 2-acre parcel, but they are not going to take all 2 acres out.
Mr. Rothchild asked how many yards would be removed and Atty. Spector stated that 20,000 – 25,0000 yards will be removed over 10 years.
Mr. Bass said the Board could limit it to 10 years, phase I and 25,000 yards.
The Town of Holderness Public Works Director commented that if there were a major road reconstruction this would require more gravel than the norm and could use 5,000 yards. He stated that this would cause a blip in the plan. He stated that this may require the crusher to be used a week longer. The Town of Holderness Public Works Director stated that the only thing that the town would need an increase in gravel would be for an emergency or unanticipated event.
Mr. Rothchild, stated that due to the abutters that are opposed, it seems that it is important to have clear constraints. He said that an open book approach would not be practical from his stand point.
Mr. F________ said that he is reluctant to say that if the town needs 5,000 additional yards, then they have to go elsewhere for it.
Atty. Cooper said they could always come back before the Board to get approval for the additional requirements.
Mr. Bass stated that the Board cannot grant the special exception to the town it must be to the Pemi Fish and Game Club.
Mr. Rothchild said that the Board would like a “not to exceed” number.
Ms. DiCosola advised that this additional need for material would increase the truck traffic also. Atty. Spector stated that they are amenable to a limit on the number of trucks.
Mr. Bass said that on the site visit, he noticed the burms were very steep and in reviewing the excavation plan it shows burms that are fairly steep after reclamation. He asked if anyone had checked the ordinances with regard to slope. Atty. Spector said she believes that the plans show the current burms and slopes.
The Town of Holderness Public Works Director stated that rather than going in and excavating with a steep wall in front, they will begin to dig up so the amount of grade would be between 2:1 or 3:1, which is an acceptable grade. Mr. Bass said the ordinance requires 15%.
Atty. Cooper commented that in his opinion this will be regulated by RSA 155 E. He said that section V deals with excavation other than commercial excavation.
Mr. Bass said he reads this as a requirement as it states all excavation.
Atty. Spector said this would be clarified, reviewed and addressed at the next meeting.
Atty. Wah said this would take some consideration.
Atty. Spector said that with regard to permits, this can be a condition of approval and the town administrator has talked to the DES liaison to EPA and it has been confirmed that no federal permits are required. She stated that if the crusher cannot crush more than 150 tons per hour than an emissions permit is not required. She pointed out however, that this could be a condition of approval.
Atty. Wah asked if a site specific permit would be required and Atty. Spector said that she would look into this item (alteration of terrain permit).
Atty. Spector advised that excavation and removal may only be done between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and that all loads of material being removed will be covered. She stated that a wetting agent will be administered to minimize dust conditions in the area of residences. Atty. Spector reported that there is to be no hauling of materials during the period of time that the school buses are on the roads.
Mr. F________________ said the intent is to leave the gravel on site until it is needed. He stated that the sand will be hauled to the garage via the 2 town trucks that are available.
Mr. Bass said that with regard to hauling on rainy days, this would help with pedestrian and bike traffic.
Ms. Spector said that they believe they have met all the criteria for a special exception.
The Town of Holderness Public Works Director said that the reason that a crusher is not readily available is because some towns rely on having their own material crushed and this makes it hard to get a firm schedule. He stated that there are numerous towns that rely on crushing their own material. He said that the town of Plymouth crushes up their asphalt and waste material.
Mr. Rothchild asked if there is any method to minimize the noise from a crusher. The Town of Holderness Public Works Director said the size of the crusher limits the noise. He said that if it is done in the spring, it is typically cooler and windows are shut and it is typically rainier.
Atty. Cooper said that in rebuttal, it is in the interest of the Fish and Game Club to have the approval granted because there is a signed contract. He stated that they recognize that there are concerns and they don’t’ have a problem with conditions of approval. He stated that if the town doesn’t use the gravel, then they would have to come back and get their own permit. He reviewed language in the contract “Under the Premises Used” along with section III. Atty. Cooper stated that they are obligated to and they would enforce appropriate reclamation. He stated that an 8’ high burm is to be constructed as per the contract.
Atty. Cooper said there is intent in the contract for burming. Atty. Cooper said that all the burms that already exist deal with the noise issue.
Atty. Cooper reviewed the planned location of the crusher. He stated that it will be 1300 feet from the excavator to the road.
Atty. Cooper said that they can provide information on decibels if required. He said that decibels reduce as space is doubled.
Atty. Spector pointed out that Mr. Fermanic will be in charge of the project and the town or a subcontractor will be doing the hauling.
Atty. Cooper stated that each of the trucks carries 7 yards and there will be 2,000 yards per year of which 1,000 yards is sand to be hauled during a discreet period of time and the remaining will be hauled over the remainder of the year. He said this equates to 143 trips at 20 – 25 trips per day or 5 – 7 days.
Atty. Cooper said that with respect to the gravel being hauled it is 143 trips over a 2 year period or an average of 2 trips per week.
Atty. Cooper said that 300 trips per year. He said ½ of those will be done in a week or two and the other will be across the period of time.
Atty. Cooper said that the average trip generation for every home is 9 – 11 trips per day being generated by every household there. Atty. Cooper submitted “Trip Generation, 7th Edition” to become part of the record.
Atty. Cooper reported that the Board should consider that there was testimony from Mr. Ray relative to the scenic nature of the road and pointed to an intent to cut filed by Mr. Ray for 140 acres to be cut over a one year period. He said that this would turn into 585 loads of 100,000 pounds per load. He said the impact of just that logging operation is significant compared to what is proposed by the town. Atty. Cooper submitted the Notice of Intent to Cut Wood or Timber filed by Mr. Ray to become part of the record along with the Complete Forestry Notification and an e-mail dated Sunday July 11, 2004 regarding Alex Ray Harvest Information.
Atty. Wah asked if they were volunteering that the extent of the special exception be the town’s use. He asked for clarification relative to the contract and the club being able to use material for it’s own use. Atty. Cooper said that this was referring only to material on site.
Atty. Cooper commented that if you make a burm in a rifle pit 15%, he would not want to be downstream.
Mr. Bass said that this area is not the range and is not appropriate for a range.
Mr. Lyon asked why then are they worried about the grade, if it is not intended to be used as part of the range. Atty. Cooper said there is not intent to expand the range.
Mr. Bass reviewed the route of the trucks to be hauling the material. The Town of Holderness Public Works Director said they would be going through the cowboy shoot area to the right. Mr. Bass said there has been a large concern relative to lead that has been raised. He said that from the walk over, this area is full of lead and they would be concerned with trucks driving over it. The Town of Holderness Public Works Director noted that they intend to drive off to the left and not over the range itself. Mr. Bass said that the lead concern was two part one that it would be pulverized by trucks driving over it and two that it could be in the material being hauled.
Atty. Cooper reviewed the areas where the actual shooting takes place.
Mr. Bass asked where the plastic shot collars come from and was told that they come from the Cowboy Shoot area.
Mr. Bass called for others that wish to testify for the project. None came forward.
It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Ms. DiCosola to continue the meeting to July 26, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Bass clarified what would be undertaken at the continuation.
ADJOURNMENT At 9:31 p.m. it was the consensus of the Board to continue the meeting to the next regular meeting as earlier motioned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Karen A. Bownes
Recording Secretary
Board Works
| 
