Meeting called to order at 7:33pm by co-chairperson Mark Whitehill.

Members present: Mark Whitehill, Neil Faiman, Alt. David Holder, Matt Fish, Alec MacMartin, Selectmen’s Rep, Jerry Greene, NRPC Rep. Steve Wagner.
Bruce Johnson arrived at 7:40pm. Mr. Holder will sit on the board for Ms. Castro.

November 20, 2002: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to accept the minutes.  Matt Fish seconded the motion.  Motion passed.  Mr. Greene abstained.

December 5, 2002, Public Hearing: Change the date from November 4 to December 5, 2002.  Mr. Faiman made a motion to accept the minutes as amended and Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Motion passed.  Mr. Green abstained.

December 18, 2002: Change the date from December 20 to December 18, 2002.  Mr. MacMartin made a motion to accept the minutes as amended and Mr. Fish seconded it.  Motion passed.  Mr. Green abstained.

Dale Hallowell was present
Add notes: Lights will be turned off within one (1) hour of ceasing activities but before 8:30pm on evenings without events.
100-watt bulbs will be the maximum.
VOTE:  Mr. Greene moved to accept the application with the above restrictions (hours for sign to be on and max. watts).  Mr. MacMartin seconded.  Motion passed.
 

Mr. Fish is off the Board.
Ari Pollack represented Granite State Concrete, Co.

Mr. Faiman asked the question “Is this a permissible activity?”  He went on to say that if answer is “yes” then the Board should continue with the study.  If the answer to that thresh hold is “no” then save the time and cost to the applicant and say no now.
1. Is it premature to accept an application that won’t go into effect for about a decade?
2. Planning Board must find that the permit won’t have an adverse effect.
3. Extensive testimony of abutters and neighbors from a large area.  There were a remarkable number of complaints based on past experience.  10 years of complaints.

Discussion continued.

VOTE: Mr. Faiman made a motion to table for tonight and ask the applicant and others to write final statements and then the board to hear them next month and make their final decision. David Holder seconded the motion.  Discussion continued.

Ari Pollack inquired if the Board has a letter dated January 10, 2003.  It is a summary of Granite State’s response to abutter’s concerns.

Mr. Pollack is surprised the board would act at this time.  He felt the comments made this evening are prejudging the application.  He believes it is bias to make a decisions without investigating all the facts

Mr. Pollock feels the Boards decision tonight is premature.  Wants the board to stick to their previous decisions per the minutes to hire a consultant to help them make a decision.  The December hearing was the abutter’s turn to make their presentation and GSC didn’t get into a give and take them with for that reason.  He feels the Board is making opinions based upon information that was not responded to at the last meeting and it is contrary to decisions made months ago.  He commented on a few of the issues from last meeting; it is clear to Granite State in the ordinance of 4.1 that excavation is a permitted use.  The neighborhood is defined by two residential/agricultural districts that have been grandfathered…They feel the area is an industrial use and GSC is not introducing a new business.  Mr. Pollack requested a continuance be granted to the March meeting to provide additional time to prepare.

See file for a list of abutters/neighbors who attended the last meeting and other interested parties that could not attend.

Nicki Andrews said she is not sure how neighborhood is defined but feels that anything that affects her house is in her neighborhood

John Shepardson believes that gravel is a technical term and blasting and crushing has no context to gravel.

VOTE: Mr. Faiman will amend his motion to have the final presentation be in March.  Mr. Faiman moved the board to table for tonight and ask the applicant and others to write final statements and then the board to hear them at the March 13, 2003 hearing and make their final decision.  David Holder seconded the motion.  Jerry Green abstained.

Roll call on vote: Alec MacMartin voted yes, David Holder voted yes, Neil Faiman voted yes, Mark Whitehill voted yes, Bruce Johnson voted yes.
Selectemen’s rep. Jerry Greene abstained.

David Andrews who lives at Curtis Farm Rd. said, “Engineering standards might show that it might meet federal standards but the ones that have to live with these operations is what counts.”

Ari Pollack granted a continuance to March 13, 2003.  Will bring a stenographer to the meeting.
 

Mr. Faiman and Mr. MacMartin are off the Board and Matt Fish is back on.
Present: Attorney Alan Gartrell.  Matt Peterson and Steven Keach of Keach Nordstrom.

Mr. Gartrell began with on October 18, 2002 Mr. Johnson mentioned traffic generation under 8.4.  He stated that the project proposes no industrial use but has four commercial uses.  He also talked about 9.7.3b1 in the Design Standards section of the regulations, which identifies commercial uses and among those that constitute commercial uses, which are retail,…gas station, car wash and restaurant fast food.  He went on to define industrial uses which can include research and development and self-storage.

Discussion continued.  Mr. Whitehill remarked that they can put a commercial use in there as long as it goes under the industrial uses because it is in the Industrial District.

Steve Wagner remarked that 9.7 refer to the issue of parking.  Mr. Gartell says it is under “Design Standards” under site plan section.  Discussed the Ashtow standards and traffic standards.  Trip generation was discussed and Mr. Gartell feels the language does not parallel with the regulation.

Mr. Keach gave background on the project and traffic studies.  In April 2002, the. DOT issued a permit based upon their design.  The client would at his expense improve this section of Rt. 101.

He addressed the zoning question of number of trips per day.  It can be interrupted in one of three ways.
1. Site generated trips.  I’m going here to buy coffee and I created two trips (in/out)
2. If it was related to what I was doing before I had a donut it was one trip on Rt. 101.
3. If I was not going to Peterborough and left Wilton Center and wanted that donut then that is one generated trip.

He went on to say one patron is one trip.  Discussed their interpretation.

Mr. Johnson asked what are the numbers in/out per day in say the context of one trip in and out is considered one trip.  Mr. Keach estimated the number to be 1,174 on an average weekday.  It is based upon the uses and account linkage.  Trips generated on this road because of this facility will be 587, the others would have been riving on this route regardless of this facility.

5.16 acres up to 150 trips day is 774.  Talisman believes the ordinance speaks to option B or C (2 or 3).

Mr. Johnson commented that there is a lot of traffic on the road and this Board can’t control that people from other communities driving through the area but they can control what happens when they turn off and then when they turn back into Rt. 101.  He questioned turns.  Mr. Keach said extra pavement is the answer.  If you have someone who makes a bad judgment you give them extra area.  In his opinion it is the “no brainer” turns when people are not alert that causes accidents.  That is overcome by using stacking lanes with decal.  The higher the speed the longer the lane.  The length of the deceleration lane is 400 feet.  Taper the painted lane.

Mr. Whitehill asked about the distance from Rt. 101 to turn into the facility, which he is informed is 110 ft.  He questioned if that is enough room for two tractor trailers.  Mr. Keach explained that it goes by the 95 percentile chances.  Matt Fish has a hard time believing that that only two tractor trailers will be there only 5% of the time.  Keach said the cues are reduced in an unsupervised intersection and that gets you out is a lack of static.  Discussion continued.

Mr. Keach made the point that an industrial building would have peak traffic during the am/pm commute time and shift changes, the morning hours could be the UPS trucks.  Their commercial operation will be open from 6am-10pm and will generate traffic all day long but there will be periods that have more volume.

Mr. Johnson asked how they plan to handle the am peak traffic flow, which for morning coffee a majority of the commuters would require a left turn in and out.  Mr. Keach’s replied the level of service will mean a longer delay.   He could not give a number of expected customers for peak traffic time

John Barnes from of Talisman properties went over the history of the purchase of this property and how they changed it to commercial zoning.  There could have been 100 house lots.  In 1997 they presented subdivision plan and it was discussed and understood at the time.  In April 2002 we presented a plan and made the requested changes and then went to ZBA.  If we knew the industrial zoning would have applied to this property then we would never had agreed to this change.  The town spoke favorable about changing the regulations but it was not at an official board meeting.  “If 8.4 is going to be applied to this then I wish I was told this in April 2002”.  This issue came up in October 2002.  He didn’t think the industrial ordinance applied to the commercial property.

The classification of Industrial Drive was discussed.  The larger issue of what this road can handle needs to be addressed.  The issue of the Aquifier Protection areas has not been discussed yet.

Attorney Andrew Cirrell, Monadnock Water, Inc., inquired about addressing environmental issues and requested to make a presentation at that time.  He thinks the applicant is wasting their time and by their own admission they are over the trips per day

Mr. Gartell granted an extension to the February meeting.
 

Mr. MacMartin and Mr. Faiman are back on the Board.
 

Neil Faiman sat on the Board with the special exception on this case and has no reason to step down.
Jack Kelley, Meridian Land Services was present.
The applicant was before the ZBA the previous evening.  They have permits to support the common driveway.  All 4 new lots will be serviced by the common drive.  Three by one driveway on (C-17 1-3) as reduced frontage and then C-17-4 will be access from the new driveway.

Neil Faiman said the variance is for the driveways and then to cross the wetlands.  The conditions are to place a guardrail at 100 ft. by the wetlands and a second condition is in regards to the drainage and how that is being handled.

See file for a letter from Daniel Donovan (abutter on Marden Rd. C-18).  He is agreeable to do what is necessary to allow the applicant to address the concerns of the fire dept. by enhancing the pond on his property.  The applicant will pay for the improvement to the fire pond.

Spencer Brookes has an environmental concern that there could be open wells on this lot and if so that they be properly closed. He also said the Conservation Commission is ready to move to the state level.  They are satisfied with the ZBA conditions on the variance.

Mr. MacMartin questioned the vertical slope and how high the banks are.  He is wondering if it should be looked at because the slope is substantial and will service 4 homes.  He believes the construction for the private drive should be reviewed to ensure that what is being proposed is constructed at a satisfactory level.

Mr. Holder questioned a pipe that goes under a driveway.

Mr. Wagner said the application was in good shape prior to the ZBA meeting but there were a lot of changes made since than and requested time to look at the plan.

To Do List:
1. Name for the road.
2. David Holder will walk (ski) the bounds.
3. Fire Chief.
4. Look for old wells on the land.
5. Speak with the Road Agent about concerns.
6. Contact Alec Buchanan with an estimate (886-5387)

Driveway construction, soil and erosion control
If engineer has question contact Bill Davidson 673-1441
 

The plan was accepted on December 18th.
Neil Faiman said he sat on the Zoning Board for special exception and feels he has no reason to step down.
Bill Davidson was present

Mr. Davidson discussed four culverts on Marden Road that need to be replaced and a detention basin on Marden Road.  He understands the Road Agent has some concerns about Marden Road.

See file for a wavier requesting a 9% slope.  They are waiting for the Conservation Commission to send the expedited application to the state.

Scott Gauthier discussed a home/barn that is close to the road and is an area of concern.

After viewing the area, Mr. Johnson suggested the subdivision be a cul-de-sac.  Residents talked about traffic flow and stated that vehicles going to town will take Wilton Center Road not matter how the road is laid out. Mr. MacMartin suggested they relocate the proposed road over one set of lots.  It was noted that roads should be 24 ft. wide. Discussion followed

Mark Whitehill discussed if the real issue is it is a premature for level of service in this area. Mr. Johnson wonders if it is time to develop a master plan for Marden/Goldsmith Rd.  The intersection was discussed, which is in bad shape as is.  Discussed scattered and premature developments and what the Board has to look at.

Scott Gauthier, LLC Partner, discussed his concerns.  He does not think the traffic in this area is bad.  He said the homes would be 3-4 bedrooms.

The Board would like to send this application and the previous one (C-17) out to an engineering firm.  The applicant will contact the chairperson if they want an engineer to look at the plan.

Mr. MacMartin discussed two components of the road issue.
1. The subdivision, which the applicant can control.
2. There will be some impact here but it won’t be just this applicant’s responsibility.

The Conservation Commission will go ahead with the wetlands application.
 

Raymond Shea from Sandford Survey was present.
The project is a 30-acre parcel between Isaac Frye Highway, Badger Farm Rd. and Abbot Hill Rd. in which 15 acres will be left undeveloped.

It is in the residential/agricultural district and the soils are favorable for one-acre lot size.  Discussed the farm organization using the field.

There will be some conservation easement possibility and the snowmobile trail will be continued but probably moved.

In the near future they will be coming in with a plan for the 50-acre lot down the road.  There are no plans for the farm and the other lot at this time.

Note that Lot 54 should be lot 54-8.

The Board asked questions about impact for this subdivision on the road.  It was discussed to check the soils and have the driveways looked at.
 

David Ely and Arthur Auer were present.
Pine Hill is considering subdividing off a 9-acre lot from their 45-acre lot for a teacher training facility.  Propose to take the north/west corner and provide another access road to Abbot Hill.  The project will be built in two phases.

The ZBA does not have regulations for a college campus.  The special exception for a school in residential/agricultural area is K-12 schools.  Discussed redefining the terms of education to include post-secondary education.

The primary use of the dorm facility will be in the summer as well as workshops and conferences throughout the year.  The training program will be for Pine Hill, High Mowing and all Waldorf programs.

Talked about snowmobile trails running through the property and suggested they consult the Conservation Commission.

Bruce Johnson made a motion to adjourn at 11:45pm and it was seconded by Alec MacMartin.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted
Kathleen Humphreys