Meeting called to order at by 7:37pm Chairperson Michael Davidson.

Members present: Mike Davidson, Bruce Johnson, Neil Faiman, Matt Fish & Alec MacMartin, alternate Dawn Tuomala and NRPC Circuit Rider Steve Wagner.

Opening statement by Mike Davidson included that the Board will not be taking comments from the public tonight.  This work session will concentrate on compliance issues at hand.  The Conservation Commission will be involved in this study.

It was agreed upon that the Board should review the current site plan to investigate if Granite State Concrete (GSC) is in compliance before approving a gravel pit expansion.

155E, which is the governing factor was discussed and the qualifications of firms need to deal with the exact situation.

Alec MacMartin address his concerns that he is not sure if the Board can solve all the problems at once.  He suggested the Board look at issue by issue and talk to who we think is qualified and see how they feel about the project and to talk with town counsel.

Peter MacLellan will supply the Board with a list of companies/firms used by Granite State so there won’t be a conflict of interest.  Mr. Davidson asked Steve Wagner to provide a list of range of people/firms whom the Board could consider to do the study.

Mr. Johnson suggested to keep the Conservation Commission and compliance issues separate.

Granite State’s attorney, Ari Pollack stated he is confused as to how we noticed work session and how the work session will go.  Granite State didn’t bring in their experts tonight.  They can provide a list of engineers as well as engineers who can represent the town’s interest.  Lyndeborough hired Steve Keach to help in their recent GSC application.  Mr. Pollack stated the difference between the current site plan, which is different from the current application before the Board.  He is concerned that this meeting was noticed as an expansion application and not as current operation review.

Mark Whitehill suggested that a good place to start would be performance standards and how it measures up to on-going operation.  Noise needs to be addressed.  Industry standards would be used as a base.

Steve Wagner gave examples from the Leitchfield case where Hanard, Swanson, Sandboard and Head look at dust control on site, excavation, reclamation. explosions, reside, storm water runoff and containment in major event, hours of operation as well as notification of abutters in advance of blasting.  He gave the Board copies of the Leitchfield proposal to review to see the scope of the project.

Mr. Faiman addressed the requirement are 155E and suggested that maybe the new excavation permit would consider a review period after a few years.

Dr. Belastaro, a UNH hydrologist was recommended by Dawn Tuomala.

Spencer Brookes addressed his concerns:
1. From High Mowing School you can see the explosion and the dust trail which is considerable and that one can see it from the east a great distance.
2. The truck traffic and pollution of Stoney Brook could be a problem
3. The retention pond.  Under the tracks the water looks clear and there was no mud and residue.  The commission is not sure where it becomes Pike/Quinn’s property.  The issue is the flow going into Quinn’s property, which is causing Quinn’s to pollute.
4. Type of blasting material.
5. Problem with water flow on Stoney Brook.  It was determined it was the other operation involved.  Want to validate they are not getting water from Stoney Brook.
6. On the site walk it was observed that more than 5-acres are open.

Mr. Spencer inquired if there are railroad cars that can handle the stone dust that does not get loaded into the railroad cars.  GSC will look into that.

Mike Davidson’s concerns:
1. Trucks over brook-pollution
2. Run off from Quinn or Pike
3. Blast material, pollution and ground water quality
4. Size of graphic information on tremor and noise
5. Blasting effects of sight and dust
6. Information on rail cars to transport all material from the site

Peter MacLellan informed the Board that GSC is expected to shut down around Christmas, depending on the weather.

The proposal and cost expectations will have to go before the Selectmen.  The Board would require an open invitation from GSC to come and see the operation.

Mr. Faiman said, “with regards to the application itself, my impression is it is comprehensive and is best management in regards to this application so it should be easily verified with experts in the field.  We have records that say we are going to blast in this way and the runoff will be here and this should be easy to confirm.  He also would like to accumulate a collection of reports from the neighbors in writing to provide that part of the picture.  I would hope when ready to make a decision we will have a file of concrete neighborhood experience. It was agreed the firm should have access to the abutter comments file.”

It was discussed to develop screening and trigger points that are clearly identified so the applicant and board are clear on what to expect.  Expected problem areas are dust, noise, blasting and maybe blast schedule.

Mr. Brooks suggested the Board take a look at wildlife issues and the need for input from a biologist.

See file for letter dated Aug. 29, 2002 from Prof. geologist.  (See file) North American Reserve.  This letter should also be forwarded to the Engineer.

Discussed the firm and requirements.  It is in the best interest to have a representative from potential firms at the next Planning Board meeting.  The issue of payment should be addressed.  For reasonable studies the applicant pays the fees, but the applicant should have approval rights.

Abutters were invited to submit their concerns in writing as part of the study.

Abutter Hal Levine commented “it is not an issue if blast is in compliance but does it get in the water”.

Neil Faiman replied “the Board needs to sit down and see what we are doing in our performance standards, what we are trying to accomplish and how it fits into the proposal.  There are restrictions, and are they reasonable and how they relate to the proposal.”

Mr. Pollack would like to discuss a time line of the application and the need for additional time if necessary.  He questioned if there is a 65-day decision rule under 155 E.  Steve Wagner added, if the applicant does not wish to extend the timeline then the Board is forced to make it’s decision based upon current information.  The application was accepted on July 18, 2002 so a final decision needs to be made in x-amount of days.

Mr. MacMartin made a motion to adjourn and Mr. Johnson seconded it at 8:57pm.

Signed:  Kathleen Humphreys