Minutes of the Meeting
Lancaster
Planning Board
Held at the Town Hall upstairs Tuesday May 9, 2006
Regular members attending: Chairman Fred Emerson, Vice Chairman Steve Young, Claude Reed, David Rexford and Les Hilton.
Alternate members attending: John Brooks, Joe Hoey and Aurore Hood.
Excused: Ann Dubreuil and Leon Rideout.
Others attending: Interim Town Manager Edward Samson, Jr., Administrative Services Manager Becky Newton and Selectmen’s Representative to the Planning Board Leo Enos, Sr.
Other members of the public attending: Edith Chessman, Alan Savage, Murray Vashaw, Alan Bouthillier, Warren Hawes, Edward Rosebrook, Jr. Glynda Rosebrook, Hank Dryer, Travis McMann, Casey McMann, Randy Hoffmeister, Tom Southworth, Nancy Southworth, Dana Southworth, Brian Ruth, Kathy Ruth, Jack Stewart, Heather Stewart, Colin Sutherland, Surveyor, Attorney David King, Attorney Bradford Atwood, Peter Riviere, Melissa Grimma, Reporter and Dick Morneau, Engineer.
Before the meeting there were additional information packets
given to the Board members. There were 4 sheets pertaining to the meeting. 3
regarding the Alan Bouthillier case and
a new worksheet to be used on the “decision on the excavation permit.” (This
information was not available to the Board before as it came in the day of the
meeting.)
Chairman
Fred Emerson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. He welcomed all to the
meeting and reminded everyone that there would be no foul language or attacks on any of the
persons, if such was done they would be asked to leave the meeting.
Initial Business:
Approval of the minutes of the April 11, 2006 meeting. It was asked what the Board wished to do.
A
motion was made by Claude Reed and seconded by Steve Young to accept the
minutes as printed – making note that there were a couple of spelling errors. A
vote was called for and the motion carried to accept the minutes subject to
corrections that needed to be made.
Public Hearings:
Minor Subdivision
Case #663 – Sam and Rita Fumosa. They were requesting a Minor Subdivision to create one new lot off l07 Stebbins Hill Road/Walker Drive. The Fumosa’s were represented by Randy Hoffmesiter who presented the plans pertaining to same. They were taking out the bottom half of the lot which would be 3.5 acres. The plan showed access to the lower lot. It was asked why there were no set backs on the plan, none were needed at this time as it is not a building lot. It was asked if there were any abutters present to speak – there were none. It was asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak – there was none. A motion was called for to accept the application as complete.
A motion was made by Claude Reed and seconded by John Brooks to accept the application as complete. A vote was called for and the motion carried.
A motion was then called for to accept the plan for final approval. At this time John asked about the setbacks. It was said that if they do decide to build on that lot they would have to come back to the Planning Board with another plan. It showed on the plan where the septic was to go. It will be a private road. Becky asked if the owners were aware that they needed to come and sign a Town Standard Road Resolution Waiver and Mr. Hoffmeister said that they were aware of that.
A motion was
then made by Steve Young and seconded by Aurore Hood to accept the plan for
final approval. A vote was called for and the motion carried.
Minor or Technical Subdivion:
Case #664 Henry and Judith Dreyer. They were requesting a Minor Subdivision to
create a new lot off Middle St./Brickyard Road or a Technical Subdivision off
l40 Middle St. Colin Sutherland,
Surveyor, presented the plans to the Board.
They were told that the Dreyers were keeping some of the land to go with
their house. It was asked if there were any abutters present. Abutters, Edward
& Glynda Rosebrook, Warren Hawes, Travis & Casey McMann came up to
check the plan and see what they were doing. They were satisfied with it. No one from the public had any questions. A
vote was called for to accept the application as complete.
A motion was made by Claude Reed and seconded by John
Brooks to accept the application as complete.
A vote was called for and the motion carried.
A motion was made by Les Hilton and seconded by John
Brooks to approval the plan for final approval. A vote was taken and the motion
carried. Becky said that the plan needed to be changed to say “Minor
Subdivison not Technical”. Mr. Sutherland asked why and Becky said that it was
because they are selling the lot. It was
asked if this would effect the current use that it is in, Colin said that with
a Minor Subdivision the lot would stand by itself. At this time Mr. Sutherland produced another
set of plans that were marked “Minor Subdivision” noting that there were
contour lines on this plan.
A motion was made by Steve Young and seconded by John
Brooks to accept the new plan for final approval. A vote was taken and the motion carried.
Public Hearing on Excavation Permit Requests:
Case #665 Allen Bouthillier This case was not heard at applicants request and due to the late hour, passed over initially to hear case #666 first.
Case #666 Alan Bouthillier Rehearing on 2005 excavation permit for Tax Map R12 Lot 73 as required by Coos County Superior Court. Continued reclamation and hauling of gravel (excavation complete) To review application for completeness and decide on final approval.
At this
time it was brought up that we (the Board) would be using a worksheet to make
decisions on the excavation. A motion was called for to accept the sheet.
A motion was made by Steve Young and seconded by Les Hilton to accept the worksheet presented. A vote was called for and the motion carried.
At this time (7:10 P.M.) Joe Hoey, David Rexford and Aurore Hood recused themselves from the Board and went and sat in the audience.
Jon Brooks was put up as a full voting member at this time. Those on the Board to vote were Steve Young, Claude Reed, Les Hilton, Leo Enos, Sr. and Fred Emerson.
Fred then asked Attorney King to address the issue. He said that he would let Attorney Atwood go first. At this time Attorney Atwood said that he wanted Fred to recuse himself . Fred said that he was going to do as the court told him and he would vote on the issue. Atwood said that he had talked with Attorney Desjardins and he recommended that Fred recuse himself. He also wanted anyone else on the Board who had heard the case that were bias and prejudice to recuse themselves also. He felt that Fred had already made up his mind and wanted him off the Board.
Attorney Atwood said that they have filed a motion in Superior Court which will be heard on June 7th to bar anyone who has heard the case . He felt that no action should be taken until the court has taken their action. This should be put off. There is also a pending motion for reconsideration of the case. The ZBA Special Exception under RSA l55-E:4 III is unclear, once it is addressed and the court agrees then it can come back before the Planning Board. They have asked the court to clarify issues and give more insight for this, to see if he (Alan Bouthillier) has met the critiea. The Zoning Ordinances are very loose. There was nothing about gravel in them 2 years ago. Things in court need to be decided before the Planning Board can act. Atwood said that Desjardins agreed that Special Exception should be taken care of before the Planning Board decides anything. On lot 2 he has no permit, he cannot dig, stockpile etc. The Superior Court vacated the order. It is only right that the Planning Board put off approving lot 2 until the June7th hearing. Alan has 2 pending applications. Case #665 & 666. Planning Board can only approve one lot at a time. He (Alan) cannot have two permits at once. His permit says that he has l year to reclaim the pit. He was done in March 2006 and he has until March of 2007 to reclaim. The court is the final arbitrator not the Planning Board. Mr. Atwood wanted to poll the members and did they read the court order. Fred said that he would not poll the members. Atwood said are you refusing to poll the board members and Fred said that he would not. Atwood said that the Board could not act because they didn’t go by the study that was requested. They are looking into the previous minutes for further investigative study. The Board cannot vote without the study being done. There is also the issue of traffic and volume of material that is being taken off. The original application stated that on Lot 1 they would take off 68,000 cubic yards and lot 2 would be 64,000 cubic yards. On the application that was sent to the State they have taken 80,000 cubic yards from lot 1 l6% more than they were suppose to and from lot 2 – 93,000 cubic yards 45% more than stated. This is in violation of the Notice of Intent and Condition of Case #556. With in increases of traffic there needs to be done an independent study. The Board cannot act until an independent study has been conducted. The fact that there was 45% more material taken out the Board can stop this action now. He (Alan) could bring out more material if he applied for an amended application. But he did not do that.
At this time Attorney King spoke saying that the Judge took his time and reviewed the case. He didn’t order a study. There is a statement that said that the minutes did not reflect same. The Lot 2 rehearing was valid until March 2006. Did Judge say that it should be closed down – no. Alan did as he was suppose to do. The Judge didn’t know that the permit for Lot 2 had runout. At this time Attorney King passed out a sheet from RSA-E:5 Minimum and Express Reclamation Standards. He mentioned that #2 on the sheet (said sheet is attached to minutes) These are things that he (Alan) is required to do. If he fails to do them he looses the bond that he posted. The Town can make him do this and charge the costs to reclaim against the bond. These things are not a joke. Feels that the Board should vote to allow him to reclaim Lot #2. Atwood said that he (Alan) has an obligation to do it. He has l year to do it. He doesn’t need to take gravel off only for money. Wait for the court to decide like the prior ruling. It was brought up that those complaining were to put up a $50,000.00 bond and they couldn’t so Alan proceeded. Attorney King said that actually Alan would have the reclamation done by Feb. of 2007. Alan asked his engineer Dick Morneau to speak. He said that they have given all proper information to the DES and the Federal people from Boston. They realize that there is a short construction period in our area .Fred said that too bad that life is this way but we are going to hear the case on Lot #2 as ordered by the Judge . The pond on Lot #1 is done, it has been mulched and seeded and they are working on lot #2. At this time Becky addressed recusal again, and suggested that Fred recuse himself Fred didn’t feel that he should. Ed spoke up and said that Fred had indeed said that he would vote in favor of the case and felt that he should recuse himself. Fred recused at 7:35 P.M.
At this time Vice Chairman Steve Young took over the meeting. He said that they would be using the worksheet that had been provided. Les Hilton asked if Alan Bouthillier was OK with having the five board members left to hear the case and he said that he was. He also asked if Leo Enos was comfortable with being able to vote with with what he knows of the case. Becky asked him if he had heard enough of the case to vote – he felt that he could vote properly concerning the issues at hand.. Atwood said that he did not think that Leo was in a position to hear on the case as he hasn’t been on the Board long enough and know the background of it.. King said that those who sat before can hear it and now he doesn’t want to have anyone hear it. Atwood said have they made up their minds and can they vote without bias and prejudice. John said that Leo can be impartial and that is a good position to be. Leo said he didn’t have any problem voting. Les said that he didn’t have a problem with Leo voting he just wanted him to be comfortable voting..
Answers to Blue Worksheet
l. Date lot#2 to be reclaimed – Between Feb. 10-15, 2007 They were done excavating in Feb. of 2006 The Board was agreeable with the Feb. 2007 date. Law says must reclaim l year from expiration of permit or l year from completion of excavation, whichever comes first.
2. Who will inspect lot #2 – It was asked how it was done in the past. Steve said there were tools for that but they weren’t done on Lot. #1. John asked if there were other authorities Steve said yes the DES. Alan said that upon reclamation the lots are inspected by his engineer, federal people and the state. The town has all of the paper work regarding this. Les said he had no problem with it . Claude said don’t change. Leo said as long as the DES is aware of it it would be alright. John said to treat it as we did Lot #1, there is enough micromanaging going on. Atwood said that the DES was there because there was a complaint about a pipe going into Bunnell Brook not because of the reclamation. Consensus was that Planning Board would go and inspect as a posted meeting.
Planning Board Excavation Worksheet: (page 2 of blue sheet)
2. Greater than 50’ that is required. Dick Morneau answered and the Board agreed to his answer to this question , including subparts.
a. No.
b. No. Greater than 50’
c. On file
d. On file
3. No Bouthillier answered and the Board agreed.
4. No Bouthillier answered and the Board agreed.
5. No Bouthillier answered and the Board agreed Atwood asked what Bunnel Brook was. Also asked what excavation means. Enos asked how far is it to the nearest stream. Bouthillier answered that it was 300-400 feet and that there was no excavation taking place within 25’ of a stream. The Board accepted that.
6. No. Drainage. Dick Morneau stated that sedimentation ponds will be installed at sites where future excavation will take place. Morneau said these work the same as a septic system in that the soil filters out the sedimentation before groundwater discharge. Jake Stewart said he would find it hard to believe that coarse gravel would filter properly. The Board accepted the drainage plan/sedimentation ponds.
7. No
8. There are temporary slopes – blocked by fence and bolders.
9’ Yes
10. Yes. But he has a special exception for all 37 acres. Atwood said that it is still in court. Becky stated that the Vaughn decision made it clear that Bouthillier has a special exception for all 37 acres. The Board agreed.
11. No.
12. John Brooks said that trucks passing by is a hazard but he did not feel that the trucks created an unduly hazardous situation. The Board agreed.
Atwood said that we needed to address the truck traffic which we are ignoring. King said that Ed – who was also the Chief of Police probably could answer that. Ed said that there had been no record of excessive accidents due to the trucks on the project. There had been complaints about the traffic. Leo asked if there had been any tickets given for speeding and the answer was no. Ed said that he and Nancy Southworth had discussed the issue and have not identified any specific trucks at that pit. Some were from other
pits. Jake Stewart said that they should consider the safety issue of after dark and icy roads in winter. Ed said that it does get dark earlier in the winter months but they probably wouldn’t be hauling then. Kathie Ruth said that she almost got hit right by Dave Smith’s house as two vehicles were coming and couldn’t see each other, she said that she has witnesses to this and she has spoken to Alan and his attorney about this. Atwood once again said that there needs to be a traffic study done and reliaze the damage that is being done to the road.
Back Page:
.l. No. Bouthillier and Morneau answered and the Board agreed
2. No. Morneau answered and the Board agreed.
3. Yes.
a. Site specific application from state
b. EPA application
c. Notice of intent
d. Grant EPA – Section J not required if there is no discharge from the site and there will not be any future discharge.
4. Yes
5.Total for all ponds – each pond under five acres
6. Yes. Morneau answered and the Board agreed.
7. a. Enos said that a traffic study was probably a good idea. Les agreed as long as Bouthillier would be able to continue to reclaim Lot #2 by hauling off material. Brooks agreed that a traffic study would help the Board decide if the project would be injurious to the public welfare..
. b. Traffic study:
l. Leo – Do traffic study
2. Les – If it can be on going
3. Claude – If it can be on going.
4. John – Yes do study as it seems to be the main complaint and it would help us in the long run.
A motion was made by Les Hilton and seconded by Leo Enos, Sr. that a traffic study be done for Lot #3 as an on going bases so Alan can continue excavating . A vote was called for and the motion carried.
8.Yes already done. 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday thru Friday
9.
l0. Make sure things are done properly. Leo asked if we had anyone qualified, he was told that the Town would get someone and bill Alan for the service. It was not decided to require field review assessment or compliance review assessment at this time.
Brian Ruth said that the traffic study is about truck traffic the quality of the road, pedestrians and the pavement, this needs to be done before Alan starts up again. Tom Southworth said that the Board needs to look at some numbers. He had some numbers that he had worked up for volume and time involved. 46 weeks of trucking times 5 days is 230 days a year. He had taken out 6 weeks for road ban time. 12 trucks with 2,760 loads at l6 yards per load is 44,000cubic yards. Application said 300,000 cubic yards this would go on for 7 years. Alan was approved for a 4 year permit. Atwood said that the study should be done before granting the request. Steve said that while operating would give a base line for Lot #3. King reminded everyone that he has to reclaim the site within a year. Atwood said not to issue new permit. Tom Southworth said that it seems that there seems to be a precedent for the traffic study. Steve said again that we are trying to follow the rules.
John asked to go back to #4 on Page l - Should the Planning Board view as a group to see if reclamation done properly. Steve said that it would give the Board a better understanding to view it. Becky said that it could be posted as a special meeting. Alan said that he did not have any problem with the Board going out to see it.
A motion was made by John Brooks and seconded by Claude Reed to go and view the site as a body and observe what is taking place. A vote was called for and the motion carried. A date is to be set for same.
The meeting went back to the truck per day issue. If traffic study on going with operation need an average number for trucks. Which trucks (Alan’s) 60 – not to exceed 60 trucks per day. (120 passes.)
It was brought up when can excavation on Lot #3 begin, after it is heard and the Board accepts Lot #2 reclamation done
Back
to Case #666 –A motion was made by Les Hilton and seconded by John Brooks
as seeing how Alan has an obligation to the Town to reclaim Lot #2 he should be
allowed to do so. A vote was called for
and the motion carried.
Case #667 Allen Bouthillier Relocation of driveway for property off
Pleasant Valley Road. This was
originally a shared driveway, but the owner is requesting a separate
drive. Alan does not have a problem with
this as long as he can have access to his lot #2. Dana Southworth, said that Dennis Donnelly has gone out and
checked it and he sees no problem with it.
There will be a separate driveway to Lot #1 and a separate driveway to
Lot #2. Alan presented an amended plan showing same.
A motion was made by Steve
Young and seconded by Claude Reed to accept the application as complete. A vote
was called for and the motion carried.
A motion was made by Claude Reed and seconded by Les Hilton to accept the plan for final approval. A vote was called for and the motion carried.
At 9:05 P.M. Fred Emerson, Joe Hoey, Aurore Hood and David Rexford came back on to the Board.
Other Business:
At this time Pete Riviere passed out a sheet explaining more information on the cell tower issue. This was regarding buildings that were more than l00 years old. Tower will now be l55’ we are loosing 34 ‘ He has contacted Ray Burton to see what he could do to help us out on this. Joe asked if there was anything that the Planning Board could do to help this along. It was suggested that letters be sent to our Representatives to see if they could help and to the Historical Society. Peter also said that no one had contacted him for any information on this. (All members had a copy of this letter)
Commercial Building Permits approved.
l. Steve Crystal – Mixed structure use.
2. Mt. Orne Enterprises – wasn’t signed last meeting
3. Rite Aid – doing interior work
4. Alan Savage – storage sheds Wasn’t signed at last meeting.
FYI:
Wetlands Permit – Dean Walts
Mark Morel – Has septic approvals
Forbes Farm – Requesting dealer plate Approved with the following conditions: Sales and storage of vehicles shall be limited to vehicles used exclusively for farming practices or related incidental farming practice pursuant to RSA 21:34c.Approval for dealer plates should in no way constitute approval for a used car dealership or sale of passenger car/vehicles unrelated to farm vehicles.
Becky urged the Board members not to sign any petitions as board members they could be put in an uneasy situation.
Noting that there was no further business to come before the meeting a motion was called for to adjourn.
A motion was made by John Brooks and seconded by Joe Hoey to adjourn. A vote was called for and the motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:45P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra E. Doolan = Clerk