Members present: Matt Fish, Selectmen Rep. Stuart Draper, Neil Faiman, Mark Whitehill, Bruce Johnson, Alec MacMartin, Betsy Castro, Alt. David Holder and NRPC Circuit Rider Steve Wagner

Meeting called to order at 7:30pm by Co-Chairperson Mark Whitehill.

Mark Whitehill and Bruce Johnson will remain Co-Chairpeople.

VOTE: Mr. Whitehill made a motion to elect Matt Fish to the position of Vice-Chairperson and Mr. Johnson seconded it.  Motion passed

Page 1, line 31: Change “status” to “standards”
Page 1, lines 28-29: should read “Trip generation has been interpreted as one car entering is one trip.  Same car exiting is one trip.  Total, two trips.
Page 2, line 28: Change “impact fees” to “off-sight improvement assessment”.
Page 2, line 47: Change “feasible” to “feasibility”.

VOTE: Ms. Castro made the motion to approve the February minutes as amended.  Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Motion passed.  Bruce Johnson & Matt Fish abstained.

VOTE: Mr. Johnson made the motion to approve the sign application and Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Matt Fish is off the board.  David Holder is in for Mr. Fish.  Seven members sitting.
Board members identified themselves for the sake of the court stenographer.
Present for GSC: Attorney Ari Pollack, Owners Peter & John MacLellan, Blast Expert Brian Fowler and Jeff Cloutier of North America Reserve.

Mr. Pollack handed out information booklets to the Board (see file)
Mr. Pollack submitted a letter (one copy) by Paul Brochu supporting the pit expansion.
Tab 16 is a petition in support of the expansion to the GSC operation.  Mr. Pollack submitted one page of additional signatures that didn’t make it into the package before press time.

Procedural history, a brief summary and review minutes by Ari Pollack.
January hearing: Mr. Faiman moved to interrupt the Planning Board’s process to ask threshold questions.  Among other things he wanted the Board to think about if it was a permitted use under section 4.1 of Wilton’s ordinance.

Mr. Pollack believes the order of events was flawed.  Mr. Faiman’s argument included the statements, the project is premature and the application is premature and asked is it permissible.  He presented it as his predisposition.  At the conclusion he suggested that GSC come in and “plea for their application survival”.  Mr. Pollack will submit that the treatment of the application has been flawed and the applicant should be saying how the application applies and why they should rely on experts and make a decision without bias.

GSC came before the Board last July and said that small towns usually don’t review excavation permits but the town, chair and other members declared the process.
1. Collect data
2. Design study and hire experts to submit data back to the Board.
3. Craft appropriate studies.  Wilton Conservation Commission (Spencer Brookes), NRPC (Steve Wagner) and abutters.

Normandeau was selected on behalf of the Board and there was a determination they would conduct the study.  The process is clearly in the minutes stated Mr. Pollock  “Asked GSC for approval of the selection, await their response…”

Mr. Pollack believes GSC cooperated.  The first meeting was for the applicant to submit a compliance review, which was conducted by North American Reserve, to RSA 151-E and the town of Wilton.  (See tab 9)

The second meeting was to hear the abutters’ personal accounts, opinions and statements from the public.  CGS listened politely and patiently during a few hours of testimony and thought they would have a chance to respond later.  January 10, 2003 was their chance to respond with a written summary of the company’s conclusion to the abutter response.  GSC is not sure if the whole Board had the chance to review the letter before the January meeting.  It was unraveling at that hearing where things changed abruptly, where there was no discussion of the letter despite the fact a process was made.  The budget for experts was discussed as they thought they would it be and the minutes reflect.  They didn’t discuss any further contact with Normandeau, instead Faiman asked for GSC to plea for their application.  The process was prejudged (prejudge is when the Board makes a conclusion as to what the application will be before it happen). State laws says a Board member who is not impartial and the members can be disqualified, which is similar to if a jury process.  State law asks if a member can step down and allow the rest of the board to make an unbiased decision.

GSC is here to present a last chance.

PROPER
Is the application premature?  Mr. Pollack said there is no restrictions on the time of the application.  Full-scale use of the expansion would be many years off but would allow blending of materials and minimize impact to surrounding neighbors.  Materials from the existing operation are becoming exhausted.  The new area is not a long time off but no exact time yet.

The applicant has a P&S on an abutting property and the owner intends to sell the property if a permit is issued.  There is no guarantees that the Tuttles will sell to GSC down the road and GSC want to know if a permit will be granted before they spend substantial money for land.

4.1 PERMITTED USE (See tab 2)
It states in the second paragraph, The removal of sod, loam, clay, sand, gravel or other natural inorganic materials from any lot in any District is permitted upon site plan review and approval, and receipt of an excavation permit from the Planning Board in accordance with the Excavation Site Plan Review Regulations in any instance where the Board determines that the removal will not be disadvantageous to the premises in question or to the neighborhood, or otherwise undesirable, and will be of such character and can be so accomplished in accordance with the Regulations.

It is clear the town can issue a permit.

It is a permitted use unless it disadvantageous…”it says it is unless it isn’t”.  GSC has many records that they can do this next to another pit.

Define a neighborhood and these terms do not have a definition and if they don’t have it you apply a common sense definition of your own.  Let’s be clear that excavation is a permitted use and rebuttal comes second in 4.1.  Ask yourself if these terms, without definition, what would be prudent to do is see what the state does with aggregate materials.  Chapter 155-E is to avoid the over extraction of aggregate and to design in the over-regulation of the materials.

What else should you do, look at your ordinance.  You know gravel is a permitted use and you know the Planning Board is not the ZBA.  Is it a question of common sense character and you are refuting a question of permitted use.  The Planning Board is one of compliance the ZBA is of conceptual and developing design.  It is inappropriate and should not be allowed.  The proper would be safety and compliance.

MERIT OF APPLICATION:
The current neighborhood contains two excavation operations, GSC, one other and then there is sometimes a third operator.  (See file for map presented)  Two unrelated excavation areas and one other to the south.  The lot has excavation on three sides and the neighborhood’s predominate use is other gravel pits.  Who was there first?  GSC has been there for 40 years and some homes have been there longer but 40 years is a long enough time to define a grave pit.
1. Can the new area be compiled with safely?
2. NRPC says it can operate in compliance.  Jeff Cloutier says they can.  Normandeau didn’t do their study.  The reality is experts and scientific data

4.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 4.6.1
Vibrations can’t be felt off-site…  Blasting is an accessory use (occasionally) and not predominate…4.6.1 we feel is a repetitive use.  Brian Fowler says the occasional vibrations that are felt beyond the property are fugitive energy, which is felt by a blast that was not properly calculated.  Proper calculation ensures money is not wasted and it is GSC goal not to waste energy.   Blasting is not the safest process and it is not dangerous.  Fowler says the vibrations from GSC are much below industry standards.

Noise, dust (tab 11) were discussed.  Jeff Cloutier (tabs 4, 5, 9) made his statement.  We hired them to give you the scientific data.

Comments on abutter comments:
-No efforts were made by abutters to distinguish operations by the two pit owners.
-No efforts on the train, traffic, fences and warning signs.
-Erred in side tracking yourself.

PETITION SIGNATURES
GCS has obtained signatures from over 80 people in the community, who are in support of the compliance of the same operation and the excavation.  Frank Millward lives less than a ¼ mile from the site and he is not impacted from the site.  While Frank was the Wilton Building Inspector he has investigated complaints and found GSC was in compliance.  Mr. Pollock read what the 80 people signed (see file).

The reality is some of the neighbors know all about the GSC operation and say, sure I would give them a permit.  These petitions represent a significant counterbalance as Mr. Faiman said as information from abutters.  The petitions contradict one another.  What it means is the Board should not be emotional and fuzzy about it.  What it should do is looking at data and look at the real issues.  Part of this job is to remove the bias and remove members who are affected by it.

This is about performance of your official duties of the job.  If you can’t come in without emotions you must remove yourself and the Board must remove you if you can’t.  You should keep on your current course, hire your consultants, send them the data and see the outcome.  GSC will pay the costs.  Do your job without bias.  We are available for question and so are our experts.

Mr. Frank Millward lives on Rt. 31.  His house is the red cape across from PVA and GSC.  Mr. Millward was the former Building Inspector for the town of Wilton.  “When we issued the permit years ago, they complied to all the regulations.  When I inspected it they were all in compliance and fixed it if needed.  When a few incidences of the blasting were reported and there were complaints they did go and provide a report.  They complied with all the regulations”.

The Board has no questions at the moment.  Mr. Pollack is done with his presentation.

Jeff Kandt, 189 Curtis Farm Road
Submitted visuals not previously submitted into record.  (See file)
1. Aerial photo 4/12/98
The photo illustrates the expansion to the property boundary.
2. Scale mode by Spencer Brookes
1”=13 feet and it shows what the height of the pit would be and they compared it to a full-scale locomotion in n-scale, and showed how it measures up.
3. Rocks found at the dummy

Mr. Kandt’s statement:
The applicant’s council desperately wants to push ahead to the battle of the experts phase.  Apparently, he thinks he can convince the experts and the Board that this proposal conforms to State law and so-called “industry standards”.  I find that hard to believe, but maybe he’s right.

Maybe state and industry standards are so low that you can upset these many of your neighbors yet still be in compliance.

Fortunately, the residents of Wilton, those who authored our Master Plan and our Zoning Ordinances gave us somewhat higher standards to apply, and it’s those standards to which I will briefly speak tonight.

Wilton’s Master Plan charges the Board to maintain the residential areas of town “so that they offer a sanctuary from the activities and intrusions of business and industry” so that industrial growth “will not conflict with the goals of protecting the rural, visual and natural characteristics of the Town.”

To these ends, the Zoning Ordinances enumerate several specific performances standards.  These apply to every Wilton landowner.  Regardless of the use to which you want to put your land, regardless of whether you are in the Industrial or Residential Zone, there are certain common-sense limits to how much aggravation you can impose on your neighbors.

You can’t degrade your neighbor’s air by emitting smoke or particulate matter.  Storm water must infiltrate the ground before leaving your property.  Objectionable noise must not become a nuisance.  Vibrations must not readily perceptible on your neighbor’s property.

But as you’ve heard from many of the people who live nearby – GSC’s existing mining operation violates these standards, inherently and recurrently.

Luckily, for GSC, grandfathered as it is under state law, their existing operation is not subject to these town standards.  And the degree to which the applicant has leveraged this handy exemption over the years is evidence in the long history of complaints, and in the strong, and growing, opposition you’ve witnessed over the past several months, as more and more people are made aware of just what the applicant is asking the Board to approve.

But something’s strange here because the expansion, if approved, would be subject to these standards.

And yet, despite the public airing of decades of complaints, despite numerous neighbors’ written and verbal testimony to this Board, despite the photographic evidence submitted during this process, GSC has still not explained how they expect to suddenly comply with our town’s performance standards.

Wilton has an additional set of rules for excavation.  The Excavation Regulations require the Board to deny projects, which do not conform to certain standards for, among other things, land reclamation.   These include the very sensible limit that no more than 5 acres can be exposed at one time.

This requirement was surely enacted to prohibit exactly the kind of project under consideration today.  Indeed, recognizing that a 120-acre open-pit strip mine cannot hope to conform to this reclamation standard, the applicant has simple requested a waiver.  I see no reason for the Planning Board to grant a waiver that would plainly violate the intention of the five-acre requirement.

If this plan is approved, Wilton will suffer the consequences for decades, even centuries.  Longer even – the landscape is being altered permanently.  By the time GSC leaves town, a generation or more from now, no amount of “reclamation” will be able to disguise the 120-acre, 460-foot deep hole that will be Wilton’s permanent legacy.

Very few of the neighbors I’ve spoken with care whether GSC’s mine conforms to state law or even “best industry standards.” Because even if it did, those standards don’t address “promoting and protecting the health, safety, prosperity, convenience or general welfare of the inhabitants of Wilton.”  That goal comes from the preamble of the Wilton  Zoning Ordinance, which provides the Board ample grounds on which to deny this application.  Thank you -  Jeff Kandt

Matt Fish, 139 Curtis Farm Road
Mr. Fish asked talked about the 2-mile dust clouds and questioned industrial standards.  He talked about RSA 151-E.2.  He believes the res./ag. district should be a “sanctuary from business”.  This project can’t comply, stated Mr. Fish.
Mr. Fish handed out a letter (see file) dated 3-19-03.

Anna Hurley, 978 Isaac Frye Highway
Ms. Hurley asked the Board to consider zoning ordinances that are advantageous.
244 citizens and 72 neighbors from other communities signed their petition.  The neighbors are signing because this will alter the landscape and quality of life

Nicki Andrews, 43 Curtis Farm Road
On Feb. 26, 2003 Wilton Pit Stop held a press conference.  She submitted a VHS copy and a transcript of the press conference.
VOTE: Mr. Johnson made a motion not to accept the videotape and transcript of the press conference and Mr. Draper seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

No Board members, except Matt Fish, attended the press conference.

Katy May Simpson from the Toxic Action Center.
Ms. Simpson lives in Boston and her organization helps communities fight toxic pollution and other environmental issues in their communities.  She supports what abutters have said so far.  She answered “yes, and two other members did also” when Mr. Pollock asked if she signed the abutter’s petition.

Robert McKenney, Esq.
Mr. McKenney submitted a memo dated 3/19/03 on behalf of abutter Pierre E. Provost (see file) and asked that all exhibits be entered into the record.

He requested the Board denies a wavier for section 6 & 7 and without a waiver it adhere the excavation to 5 acres at a time.  In support of a waiver GSC argues that their operation would be unnecessarily limited and that their cost will increase and their operation will be less efficient which Mr. McKenney points out are all business related decisions.  Their reclamation costs will increase.  The pit will expand 18 times its size (sec. 10).

Mr. McKenney went on to say that GSC is not right for approval.  The records show it will be 20 years until lots B-12 & B-154 will be utilized.  They are making a decision on present day facts despite an application that won’t happen for 20 years.  The applicant wants to lock in the neighborhood for the next 20 years.  Would the Board approve a building permit for something that won’t happen for 20-years down the road?

Mr. McKenney submitted tax maps that define the character and changes of the neighborhood if the application is approved.   (See file)

Mr. McKenney made a reference to a case in the town of Weare.  He claims the permit is to safeguard the welfare of the community and the state of New Hampshire allows you to do that without experts and the concept of public welfare is broad and expansive.  He also discussed a 1993 case involving the town of Conway where the town decided the  “visual environment is for the welfare of the community”.  He asked the Board to deny the application.

Ari Pollock’s response to abutter’s comments:
1. I disagree with the statement “there is some excavation happening on land that GSC does not own”.  That is not true and it is an error in the town tax map.
2. Scientific data
3. Pile of rocks at the dummy is not their gravel sitting in the road.  There is more than one operator in this area.  GSC’s transports via the railroad and their trucks have not been out since December.
4.  Wants to update information on the map. One comment that strikes him is the number of external towns and can tell you that the petition has estimated distance from the pit and that should bear some weight.  The pins were put there by Peter MacLellan and you will see without scientific data that it is outside the pit areas.
5. Mr. Fish mentioned it is his opinion that experts retained by the company have the bias of the company.  Mr. Pollack stated that they are professionals.
6. Atty. McKenney had a memo of law and does not address the fundamental issues of the Wilton zoning ordinance 4.1.  It is good to know what the clause 151-E is but it does not appear in the zoning ordinance.
7. The expansion area is 65 acres.  The two lots are 300 acres.

Dave Ross, 506 Forest Road
Does the town of Wilton regulate the amount of dynamite used?  The answer is no.  Does the state of New Hampshire?  He asked if the town can regulate the amount of dynamite.  Brian Fowler answered that the state does not regulate but the town can.

Barbara Woodwood, Isaac Frye Highway.
Are there a record of explosives, the amount that goes into each home, the pattern of blasting, the area and then the exact amount of explosive used in each area?   Ari said that information is available and can be submitted if it is part of a site plan.

John Shepardson, Curtis Farm Road
Why are we talking with the quantity of explosive.  The question is does it apply with the zoning and the answer is no.

John Griffith
Our house is listed in tab six where they set up sizamagraph.  I hear there is an assumption they are allowed to take material off the property under 4.1 unless it is disadvantageous to the neighborhood.  I don’t see it this way.  Do they read it as a presumption they can do it unless it is or do they find it out first?

Michele Joyce, Rebeckah's Way
As far as vibration I can tell if a truck delivers my oil.  I bought an ugly hole and I have a lot of gravel brought in to make it livable.  I’m in favor of GSC.

Peter Leachman, Owner of the Milford-Bennington Railroad
We were here 12-13 years ago with Mr. MacLellan, Sr.  GSC has invested hundreds of thousand of dollars to the railroad to get the trucks off the road.  I heard statements tonight that all the material is going to Massachusetts but that is untrue.  A lot of it is going right to the community.

Statements made in the past that GSC does not live in the standards and it is not true
.
The DES has visited me and they observed the environmental concerns of the trains and the EPA and DES have not found anything.

There would not be a Wilton Scenic RR if there were not this quarry

John Roach, 36 Curtis Farm Road
We purchased our home in the winter and we love it, the view and the apple orchards.  I was startled to experience my first explosion and now I find out we have a quarry in the neighborhood and there is nothing we can do about it because it is grandfathered.

Stanley Young, 915 Isaac Frye Highway
Q:  what is a neighbor?  Am I a neighbor if I can stand on my property if I can see this operation?  The Board is not ready to answer this question.  His opinion is to be a good citizen and to be a good citizen goes beyond paying taxes and obeying the laws.  It is being involved and active in community affairs and this is what makes Wilton a great place to live and raise a family.  Businesses should be a good citizen also by making contributions.  He talked about two companies who he felt were good citizens but they don’t operate anymore but their legacy lives on.  Yes, they pay taxes but it is minimum in the amount of materials taken out.  There is not much local employment.  They are taking away scenic vistas, our natural endowment is being taken away and we are losing habitat for animals, clean water and our air is in jeopardy.  Wilton is left holding the bag.  The only legacy left is a big ugly scare in the scenery and we would be foolish to let this expansion continue.

Carol Roberts, Curtis Farm Road
Has the town received any reports from the EPA and DES on GSC’s operation?  The board would have to review the records to determine that.

Willy Bouche who lives in Wilton asked about GSC’s trucks.  He was informed they use Rt. 31.

Mr. Faiman request that the Board consider Mr. Pollock’s opinion on bias and see if the Board reflects that Mr. Faiman’s remarks are prejudgment and if so would recluse himself from the remainder of the case.  The Board voted as followed:
David Holder-No  “…commonsense…”
Betsy Castro-No.
Alec MacMartin-No, I see no bias for reclusion.
Bruce Johnson-No there are other issues involved that may preclude us from granting the application and felt that the applicant would want to know.
Mark Whitehill-No, I don’t see a reason to recluse himself.
Stuart Draper was not a Board member when the statement was made.

VOTE: Mr. Faiman moved to table the proceeding to a further meeting for discussion and decision by the Board but not for further testimony.  Seconded by Mr. MacMartin.  Motion passed.  The case will be continued to April 2, 2003 at Wilton Town Hall.  David Holder abstained.

Steve Wagner reviewed the minutes from 8/21/02.  He was quoted, as saying he felt it was critical use.

Mr. Fish is back on the Board.  Mr. Faiman and Mr. MacMartin are off and David Holder replaces Mr. MacMartin.
Sam Proctor would like to grant the Board a continuance.
VOTE: Ms. Castro made a motion to continue to the April meeting and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Mr. Faiman and Mr. MacMartin are back on the Board.  Mr. Holder is off the Board.

Jack Kelley-Meridian Land Services & Attorney Buchanan were present

Items from last meeting
1. Driveway was reviewed by Normandeau and submitted a copy of the letter for the file.  He met with Bill Davidson and revised the plans and he has no more concerns.
2. Also submitting Bill Davidson’s responses to his review.
3. State subdivision approval
4. NHDES dredge and fill permit
5. Two benchmarks have been added

Atty. Buchanan  (gave $800 check for last issue, which was handed over to Kyra) Discussed build vs. bond the fire pond.  Dredge and fill and can’t do that until the snow is gone.  We would be happy to build subject to the approval of the fire chief/selectmen and we know there will not be a signed plan until that is done.  Discussed assessment and conditional approval.

Mr. MacMartin discussed the process to make sure it is clear in the record.  We want to make sure that condition is done to approval.

Mr. Johnson believes that without a master plan to Marden Rd. it is “scattered and premature subdivision” and every approval will handcuff improvements on that road.  Discussion continued.

Brian Sullivan asked questions about assessments and was informed about the process.

VOTE:  Mr. MacMartin made a motion to accept the application.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

VOTE: Ms. Castro made a motion to conditionally approve the plan on the conditions that the fire pond be built or bonded for construction, easement language to be approved by town counsel and acceptance of off-site improvements of $1,500 per lot to be paid before the mylar is recorded.  And the applicant to report every 30 days unless written extension is requested.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. MacMartin opposed.  Motion passed.

The Board will hear the next two cases on the agenda and the rest will be heard at town hall next Wednesday, March 27, 2003 at 7:30pm, Wilton Town Hall.  Senator Dev., Markaverich, AT&T Wireless (F-12-4), Stenersen and new application AT&T Wireless (Lot M-24).

Bill Davidson, Meridian Land Services was present

The town entities discussed the town would be better able to maintain the road and it would be safer if it goes from an 8% to a 9% grade.  This was discussed at the selectmen’s meeting recently.  Discussion continued. Mr. Davidson will revise the plan to a 9% grade and update the drainage calculations.

VOTE: Mr. Faiman moved to table to motion on the waiver until they receive a written opinion from the town engineer.  Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

Received two permits
1. Wetlands
2. Site specific permit

Discussed either a cistern or pond with abutter, Dick Greeley.

Mr. MacMartin informed the applicant about additional permits needed for a 16-lot subdivision as opposed to 15-lots.

The Board would like the plans to be reviewed before the next meeting.  The soils should also be reviewed.

Spencer Brookes mentioned that Blood Brook is a cold water stream.  He will updated the Board if necessary.

Maintenance of the retention pond was discussed. Mr. MacMartin made the point that the retention/detention ponds are to be maintained by the property owner unless it is a town road.  Mr. Davidson said it is a detention pond and it is because the water leaving your property is no greater that was it was when it entered.   There is a drainage easement and it goes with the road if the town accepts the road.  The detention is on one of the lots.

An impact review of Marden Road was discussed. Maybe the Heritage Commission should be involved.  The layout of the access road was discussed.  Mr. Draper believes the new road coming out near Goldsmith is the best location.  Mr. Brookes mentioned there might be a set of reasons as to not to widen it, such as speed. .  Discussed redesigning the subdivision

The land abuts conservation land out back and there is a considerable amount of land on the property and it would not effect the use of the land except the buildings so the builder may want to consider conservation easement. The NH Forestry can help.

Mr. MacMartin discussed different districts that overlay.  The lots that are impacted 35-10 (watershed) district.  Mr. Davidson stated there is enough land for a house there. On sheet 7, lots 1 and 2 well radii overlap and that should be fixed.  Mr. MacMartin also noted that 7 out of the 16 lots are undersized.

Bruce Mordon, who own lot C-25-2, noted the plan listed Richard Greeley Trust as the property owner.  He wants to know why the lots are less than 2 acres.  He also questioned on page 3 that it has permanent drainage easements, which would come out to his driveway and is concerned.  His third concern is taking out rock walls and if he has a say about it.  Mr. Davidson answered his questions.

Bob Todd was present
Three open items from last meeting
1. Bounds  (Matt Fish walked the bounds)
2. Chief’s letter (see file)
3. Review of easement language by town counsel. (see file)

VOTE: Mr. Faiman made a motion to approve the plan Betsy Castro seconded it.  Bruce abstained.  Motion carried.
Fees paid  $42.37 for HCRD
NRPC fees  $40

VOTE: Ms. Castro made a motion to appoint Brian Sullivan as an alternate member to the Board.  Neil Faiman seconded it.  Motion carried.

Stuart Draper discussed a portable ticket booth for the Wilton Scenic RR

Mr. Johnson made a motion to adjourn was seconded by Ms. Castro at 11:45pm.

Signed
Kathleen Humphreys