ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Walpole, NH  03608

Minutes-----19 September

PRESENT:     M. Mansouri, Ch., J. Galloway-Leclerc, L. Carignan, L. Britton, L. Weber, B. Webb, D. Calhoun, MT. Lester

Note:  These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed on 17 October 2007 for errors, omissions and corrections.

The meeting was called to order at 7:30pm., following a site visit to the Frank W. Whitcomb property on Old Drewsville Road.  Attendees at the site visit were advised that comments made at the site visit were not part of the hearing, and that any comment they wanted to be considered as part of this hearing should be made during the hearing.   The Chair explained the new seating arrangements for voting members and alternate members.

 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:  Frank W. Whitcomb Construction Corp., by Richard A. Fraser, One Source Properties & Permitting, LLC., Gravel Pit Permit Application.

  Ms. Mansouri resumed the continued public hearing, and noted that Mr. Webb and Mr. Calhoun were appointed at the original hearing to vote on this matter, along with Ms. Galloway-Leclerc, Ms. Weber and Ms. Mansouri.  Mr. Webb and Mr. Calhoun changed seats with Mr. Carignan and Mr. Britton, to reflect their voting status in this matter.  She asked for further comments from members of the public or the Board following the site visit.  Ms. Frankiewicz reported the EPA says that blue herons, spotted lizards and protected turtles use the wetlands on this site.  Mr. Fraser said he would have to hear from the EPA about them.  Peter Palmiatto, a member of the Walpole Conservation Commission said the presence of protected species on a project area is a problem.  I f a nearby wetland is impacted, a wetland permit would be required.  Mr. Fraser said that the project did not meet the criteria for a wetland permit, and that the wetland would not be impacted.  Lou Shelley of the Walpole Conservation Commission asked how many square feet in the project area.  Mr. Calhoun replied the plans show 86,016 square feet.  Mr. Shelley said a wetlands permit is needed for 20,000 square feet. Mr. Fraser said that none of the project area is in the wetland.  Mr. Shelley said that any pond requires a permit.  Mr. Fraser said that was incorrect. 

  Mr. Palmiatto said that the wetlands adjacent to the project area have been identified by the Walpole Conservation Commission as the Whitcomb Forest wetland.  It is prime wetland, in the top 5% of the town wetlands for its value for diversity and flood control.  Projects adjacent to it would need a state permit.  The Conservation Commission recommends that a state permit be obtained.  The haul road on the site is within feet of the delineated edge of the wetland.  Excavation below the water table will cause underground flow between the wetland and the excavation site.  The excavation may expand the wetland, but the change in water level in the existing wetland may have an impact of that wetland. A state permit would ensure that impacts on the existing wetland are evaluated and minimized., and all best management practices are followed.  Jonathan Sisson, wetlands specialist hired by FWW, asked if it was a state registered wetland.  Mr. Palmiatto said it was not.  There is a state procedure for state registered wetlands.  Mr. Sisson said this is not a state registered prime wetland therefore it is not under the jurisdiction of the DES.  There are no buffers for this type of operation.  Mr. Fraser wants the specific cite for the requirement of a wetlands permit.

  Mr. Palmiatto explained that the wetland has not been registered with the state, but according to the fourteen evaluation criteria used by the town Conservation Commission, this wetland had the highest rank within the town.  The paperwork was not submitted to the state because the private landowners did not want that.  The Conservation Commission’s position is that work next to a wetland should have a state permit.  Mr. Sisson replied that the state does not have a permit for this situation.  It is an issue for zoning.  Mr. Palmiatto said that he does not know if this project will have an impact on the wetland.  Putting in an application will help determine what impact there will be.

  Mr. Calhoun relayed remarks made to him on the site visit by Duncan Watson, who was unable to come to the hearing.  Mr. Watson was concerned about the condition of the site and management of materials on the site.  Unmarked barrels were on the site adjacent to the wetland.  He is concerned about possible impact on both the wetland and the proposed pond.  Mr. Fraser noted that the site is used for construction material storage.  Bill Ballou, of FWW, explained that no hazardous waste or gasoline is stored there.  After the construction season is over, the site is cleaned up.  Mr. Shelley said that FWW had a wetlands violation within the last ten years where materials leaked into a wetland.  Ms. Weber said that although the storage site was not part of this application, the site visit caused her to wonder if, over time, rain on the stored materials could cause leachate into both the proposed pond and the existing wetland.  Mr. Fraser said that the storage area is a separate issue.  He is confident that the best management practices are good for the proposed gravel operation.  Ms. Weber said that given the current practices on the storage site, there are concerns about the validity of the best management practices for the proposed site.  Mr. Fraser suggested that Mr. Ballou could take that up with FWW management.  Currently, a 12 to 18 inch berm protects the wetland from the storage area. 

  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc said the storage yard is there by a special exception, so the property is already subject to that permit.  The new project is related to the existing one, and perhaps it could be looked at as one interrelated area.  They are too closely related to be viewed as two separate projects.  Ms. Mansouri asked if she was proposing to amalgamate the two?  Ms. Weber thought they were comparing apples and oranges.  The special exception is a separate question.  Ms. Mansouri said that questions about truck traffic and the road were raised when the special exception was granted.

  Ms. Frankiewicz expressed concern that this project will escalate and will not be considered on a one by one basis.  Mr. Britton noted we can only address the project on the table before us.  Ms. Weber emphasized the need to look at the special exception as a separate matter.  Ms. Lundgren said that one’s home is not always tidy, but one cleans it up for company.  The site has rubber. Old equipment, crushed buckets with no labels and a salter-type device on it.  It might have been tidied up for the site visit.  This is a reflection of management practices for the present and the future.  Ms. Frankiewicz asked once a permit is issued, is there more notice given if FWW comes back to do more things?  Ms. Weber said that new notice must be given to the abutters if there is an expanded use on the site or if the project is going to continue after the permit expires.  Ms. Lundgren asked if the Board was going to consider compliance with the special exception first.  Ms. Mansouri said that the gravel pit is a separate issue.  The special exception can be taken up at the next meeting.  Thomas Fitzgerald said the gravel pit is a separate operation, but it will use the existing road, so is that a change of the existing special exception?  Is there a new site plan? FWW is mixing the two sites together already.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc agreed.  Mr. Fraser said that the town regulations include earth excavations as a permitted use.  The egress is part of the site plan.  He was asked if the road is part of the project area for the proposed operation.  He said it was an existing road, and the project will use already existing infrastructure.  Mr. Britton said that roads used to access farm fields do not need a permit. 

  Mr.  Lundren returned to the issue of impact on the primary wetland, as water will flow between the two sites.  Mr. Calhoun asked if there is any testing on water quality in the wetlands.  Mr. Palmiatto said there was not, that a hydrologist was needed to determine water quality, and address erosion, siltation and mitigation.  Mr. Fraser said that berms are already in place and have been for years.  Mr. Webb asked if it was possible to quantify impact to say how much is detrimental.  Mr. Palmiatto said no, that needs the state hydrologist.  Mr. Webb said that the Conservation Commission is proposing this be done.  A state permit would evaluate the project and set up mitigation measures and issue a permit.  A simple phone call could help sort out the relative impact.

  Ms. Weber returned to the issue of the road.  Does the use of the road require it to be included in the project area for purposes of determining whether a state excavation permit is needed?  Mr. Fraser said that 2.3 acres is the threshold for a state excavation permit.  Including the surface area of the road would not bring the total area up to this.  Mr. Calhoun asked if the existing road is already having an impact on the wetlands.  Mr. Palmiatto said the road may be lower and tipped away from the wetland so it does not look like it would affect the wetland.  He is not confidant that best management practices would totally mitigate future effects, but the state, not the Conservation Commission, has the authority to regulate.  Mr. Shelley said the Conservation Commission is just advisory.  They turn to the state for expertise.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc said that we need to find out from the state if a permit is required.  Mr. Lundgren asked if the Board is now considering the special exception and the proposed excavation together or separately.  Ms. Mansouri said they are still two separate issues, and we need to find the answer.  Mr. Britton asked Mr. Fraser if the project could be done without using the road which is close to the wetland.  Mr. Fraser said he would like to show Mr. Palmiatto what is there now.  There is a berm, a silt fence and vegetation to protect the wetland.  Best management practices are in place.  A new road could be constructed through the cornfield, but that would have more impact than the current proposal.  This application was submitted to the Conservation Commission at the same time it was submitted to the ZBNA—he wishes they had spoken up earlier.  Is this the result of outside influences?  Mr. Shelley said he learned of the site visit yesterday, and there has been no outside influence. John Sheldon asked if the size of the project was limited because of the wetlands and the road, and if they wanted it  to get bigger later, could it?  Mr. Fraser reiterated that he had been approached by FWW for the project because of the Alstead road restoration project.  The project was sized so as not to need a state site specific excavation permit, as those permits are out about 120 days.  The project was sized for the Alstead project and the town permit.  Looking at the delineation of soils on the plan sheet, the sand and gravel is underlain by haven soil.  The wetlands cannot be excavated.  Other soils in the cornfield are not as good.  There may be more gravel available elsewhere.  Ms. Weber reminded that if the project expands, or lasts more than three years, an new permit or an amendment will be required, either of which would require new notice to the abutters.  Mr. Sheldon asked if FWW could apply for a new one-acre permit in three years.  Ms. Mansouri said they could, but notice would have to be given.

  Ms. Weber returned to the road question.  She asked if the access road was typically included in a project area?  Mr. Fraser replied that typically, it was, but here the road already exists.  Ms. Weber asked if the special exception already in place on the property extended to this use of the road?  Ms. Galloway–Leclerc said the special exception was solely for the storage of equipment.  She doesn’t know if this will be a substantial change difference.  Mr. Fraser said they are two separate projects.  With respect to the gravel excavation, if you grant the permit you are granting access.  Ms. Mansouri said you are if the access was part of the project.  Mr. Calhoun said we need to determine if the road is part of the current project.  Ms. Mansouri said that might lead to the need for a state permit.  Ms. Weber said she said that she saw two separate issues.  If the existing road is being used for this project, then the special exception already on the property should be amended to include the change in use of the road, which was built for the storage of construction materials and equipment.  If a new road is to be built, no special exception is required, but the road should be included in the total project area.  Mr. Carignan said that if a new road was used, it might be required to have a curb cut, or is a driveway allowed?  Ms. Mansouri said that would be a matter for the selectmen and the road agent.  We need to determine if the special exception needs to be amended.  Mr. Fraser asked if the Board was saying a special exception was needed for the  road?  Ms. Mansouri said that if the existing road was permitted as a special exception, it may need to be amended.  Mr. Fraser said that a legal opinion was the way to go.  A discussion followed as to the size of the road.  Mr. Fraser said if the road is 620 feet by 20 feet and that is added onto the project area, it still does not trigger the need for a state excavation permit.

  Mr. Sisson asked if the road is part of the special exception, how do you amend the special exception.  Ms. Weber said that a petition would have to be filed to amend the special exception, because the use of the road was no longer the use that had been granted in the special exception.  Mr. Sisson talked about a special exception process he was involved in for a road over a stream.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc said that this special exception was for the land use which required a special exception in the Rural-Agricultural District.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc moved that we obtain a legal opinion as to whether the existing special exception needs to be amended because of the changed use of the road, and also whether state permits are required because of the proximity of the wetland.  Mr. Calhoun seconded the motion, and all voting members unanimously agreed.

  The Board turned to the question of when to reconvene the hearing.  Ms. Weber said that the regulations refer to a 20 day decision making period, but that this hearing had already been rescheduled at the request of the applicant, so we need to make all deliberate speed.  The hearing will reconvene on Tuesday, October 9th, at 1:30 pm in the Town Hall.  The public hearing was continued to that date at 8:55 pm.

  Mr. Britton and Mr. Carignan resumed their seats as voting members, and Mr. Webb and Mr. Calhoun returned to the alternate seats.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS:  E & W Salvage, Valley Road, by Marie Richardson, daughter of the owners, installation of truck scales.  Ms. Richardson said that in order to stay competitive in the salvage business, E & W would like to install portable scales to weigh trucks making deliveries.  She distributed a plan of the property showing the location of thet proposed scales.  The scales would be located in the National Grid easement area and they are in separate negotiations with National Grid about the use of the easement.  The scales would be about 18 inches above the existing ground level.  They would be placed within the existing gates, which are 300 feet from the road.  The nearest abutting property line is Bob Adams, which would be 200 feet or more.  The scales can be moved, although with difficulty.  They will not be covered by a roof or other protection.  It was the unanimous opinion of the Board that no permit is required from the ZBA for this installation.

Chamberlain Machine by Gary Kenyon, Esq.,  Special Exception, Map 14. Lot 4, Former Hubbard Farms property, west side of Route 12.  Atty. Kenyon, accompanied by Chris Miller, Scott Boynton and Steve Brackett on behalf of Chamberlain Machine,  presented a binder with the application and supporting documents and photos, and gave an overview of the proposed project.  The former Hubbard Farms property is currently owned by Toby Tounsley, who is subdividing the property.  Bensonwood is looking at the 32 acres to the north.  Chamberlain is interested in the 12.15 acre parcel to the south.  Six buildings on the site are now or have been in the past used for hatchery operations.

  Chamberlain has been in business in Bellows Falls since 1971.  The facility there has 33,000 square feet of high end manufacturing equipment.  It fits into a mixed use neighborhood with residences nearby.  Photos were included because the operation is similar to the 40, 000 square foot facility to be built here.  A site visit to the existing plant was offered before the hearing. A letter has been included from appraiser John Newcombe of Monadnock Appraising saying the proposed facility will have no adverse effect on surrounding property values.  Also submitted were a site plan showing the improvements and a traffic study.  The plant will employ about 50 employees.  At the Planning Board hearing concern was expressed about the impact of manufacturing on the site and possible impact on the town well.  A letter from Mr. Brackett, a geologist, regarding the geology of the site indicates that any runoff from the site will travel away from the town well.  State and federal regulation and technical advances in waste management mean that this application has less pollution risk that a residential subdivision.  The applicant will submit eight more copies of the binder to the Board for individual use.

  Atty. Kenyon asked for the Board’s input regarding the application.  The application was submitted as a Special Exception, but might be an expansion of a non-conforming use.  Mr. Webb explained that because the property was used for raising chickens, it had always been deemed to be an agricultural use.  Best to start from scratch with a special exception, as the other use has been terminated.  Mr. Kenyon said that two coops are still in use, as is a biohazard lab used for dissection and biohazard control.  These are on the 32 acre lot.  Ms. Weber moved that the application be treated as a Special Exception.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc seconded and all voted in favor.

  Ms. Mansouri inquired further about the mixed use near the current plant in Bellows Falls.  There are some residences nearby.  Ms. Mansouri asked if the property has been subdivided.  The subdivision has been on record since August.  Mr. Britton asked if the special exception were granted, what would ensure that the property might not be sold to another business that was more hazardous.  Mr. Kenyon said that was the very nature of  a special exception.  It is specific to the business it was granted to.  Any change must be granted a new approval.  The six buildings currently on the property will be removed and replaced with one single building.

  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc moved that the application be accepted and set for hearing at the regular meeting of the Board on Wednesday, October 17.  Mr. Britton seconded, and all voted in favor.

  A site visit was scheduled at the current Chamberlain Machine plant in Bellows Falls for 6:00 pm on Wednesday October 17, before the regular meeting of the Board.  The plant is located off Route 5 north of the village beyond the former Rockingham Motor inn, now the Everyday Inn.  The public is invited.

  The public hearing will take place at the Town Hall on October 17th at 7:30 pm. 

OLD BUSINESS Robin Casey of KC Signs for Walgreens sign replacement.  Ms. Casey submitted drawings for the record of the signs which will replace the existing Rite-Aid signs at the Walgreen’s property on Route 12.  The signs will cover tha same area as the old signs.

  Gravel Pit Educational Session will be held at the Town Hall on October 9th.  Registration is $10.  Please contact Elaine Moore if you want to attend.

  Fall Planning and Zoning Conference will be held at Loon Mountain in Lincoln on October 13th.

  Gravel Pit Inspection assignments will be put off until after the educational session on October 9th.

 Minutes:  Corrections to typographical errors were submitted, and the Minutes of August 19th were moved, seconded and unanimously approved with those changes.

  The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 PM.  The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 at 7:30 PM.  The Board will also meet at 1:30 on October 9th for the continuation of the Frank W. Whitcomb Corp. gravel excavation hearing.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Lucy Weber,

Secretary.