Members present: Selectmen’s Rep. Jerry Greene, Bruce Johnson, Mark Whitehill, Neil Faiman, Brian Sullivan, David Holder, Alec MacMartin and NRPC Rep. Steve Wagner. Matt Fish sat in the audience.
Tonight’s meeting is a continuation of the November meeting and the Board will begin deliberation on the Granite State Concrete’s pit expansion application.
Meeting called to order at 7:30pm by acting chairperson Mark Whitehill.
Mr. Whitehill thanked the applicant and opponents for conducting themselves very professionally over the past two years. Mr. Whitehill explained that there will be no more public input and the record is closed. If clarification of material in record is needed the Board may ask the experts, the applicant’s attorney or individuals.
VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to produce a written decision within 20 days of the vote and at that point the 10 day appeal process will begin. Motion passed unanimously.
The Board began by reviewing the excavation checklist list and verified information on the plans. Some points may require more time and will be taken up at a later time. (tab 4)
Will review in details at a later date item 8, 9, 14, 15, 23, reclamation plan and 3:1 slope.
Appendix I-2:
It was discussed to review the more concrete items such as reclamation
prior to “hazardous or injurious to health” which is more subjective.
Waivers requested:
1. Open area – more than 5-acres at one time.
2. Non-reclaimable area and 3:1 slope
3. Final reclamation plan filed at the beginning of the project.
Discussed the lack of a reclamation plan and the waiver of a 3:1 slope.
Mr. Holder felt the intent is to reclaim with 4 or 6” of loam across the floor and not reclaim other than the steps. Mr. Johnson said this is the first time we’ve faced with something that is no reclaimable in his definition.
Mr. Faiman noted there is a difference between gravel pit and excavation and they have different applications. Application said the activity is permitted…then it is appropriate to waive those restrictions for this class of excavation. If this can’t fit in then maybe this class of excavation is not allowed.
Mr. Faiman went on to say the Board has in the past waived the slope or 5-acres in the spirit of it but never considered scores of acres being opened for many, many years. It is a quantitative difference that becomes qualitative.
The Board requested Ari Pollack to point to the documents that provide the reason for the waivers in the booklets. Vol. 1, tab 4 is for operation difficulties of operating in a 5 acre minimum. It is incompatible with the step system among other reasons. Same request was presented to the abutters.
The Conservation Commission has a comment on reclamation and it is in section B under tab 12 it discuss steep steps over time and the dangers after the operation is closed when no one is monitoring it.
Mr. Sullivan said the 5-acre waive does not seem unique. Mr. Holder said yes but those operations that have been granted the waivers in the past go for maybe one or two years but this is for 80+ years.
155-E:5-1 pg. 127 was reviewed. Mr. MacMartin pointed out that all areas seen from a public way that have had trees removed shall have seedlings replanted in horticultural standards.
Leaf 21 page 4 & 5: was reviewed. It was pointed out that
section 6 & 7 in our ordinance will have to be met.
Section 7 of Operational Standards. Discussed section 6 item
6.0.3. When an excavation site is not allowed by standards the site
can be restricted. It is permitted if it meets the criteria. The
actual crushing will be in the industrial zone but is not allowed in the
residential/agricultural district.
Mr. Wagner talked about “critical points” in the waivers. If the 5 acres is not granted GSC would have to find a way to make the pit work. The 3:1 slope would be a more critical point. It was pointed out they have to vegetate the steps to reduce the visibility from a public way.
Mr. MacMartin commented if you go to residential/agricultural district then it is not a permitted use.
6:03: Does this pre-date the Supreme Court’s decision. Does it give the Board the authority to deal with a grandfathered pit under 155-E. GSC filed a permit for a brand new permitted use which happens to be continuous to a grandfathered pit.
Mr. Whitehill felt that there was not enough argument to have the whole pit open at one time.
Mr. Faiman felt it is troubling there is no proposal for reclamation for the closing of the operation and no deadline for the closing of the operation. A waiver is to allow 80-90 acres to be opened for an indeterminate amount of time which could be measured in generation. We’ve been given no suggestions that that is an unrealistic view.
In what has been determined here has economics and safety we are not talking about undetermined amount of time and multiples and multiples of time. Some reasons were the topographical and geological aspects of the sites. What are these topographical and geological unusual items other than mining a side of a hill so it really is a self-created hardship by the applicant’s choice to do what they want to do.
Mr. Wagner pointed out in Tab 4 of Vol. 1 of the applicant’s supplemental
handout, second to the last paragraph for area of operation. In that
statement there is argument that they need room to move but is that only
2 acres, 5 acres?
Mr. MacMartin pointed out that right now we have an all or nothing
application here other than our objection. It is not an option at
this point to go back and say can it be 25-acres instead.
Mr. Greene pointed out that the idea is there is 50 ft. levels but it does not have anything to do with different types of rock, they have to take the level off to move downwards.
Mr. Sullivan wanted to discuss how the properties connect physically on the plan.
Mr. Faiman has some esthetics and safety concerns that drive the waivers also. Esthetics have to come up when dealing with vertical slopes when you reclaim. Here you will have a rock face and it will always be a rock face. Mr. Wagner pointed out that the opponents brought forward the view of the pit from Mt. Monadnock and is it “acceptable during operation” vs after the project is finished. A standard 99-yr. list is considered eternity.
STICKING POINTS:
Open acres
3:1
Non-reclamation of the vertical ledge
Vibrations
___________________________________
Damage to aquifer. Question as to where the seasonal high water
was, it might be 470 feet. Mr. Pollock said it is in the 525 ft.
range in some of the lower spots active horizontal sections are 575 ft.
of the first riser and 625. 525 ft. at the base of the stockpile
was provided by Mr. Larsen.
6 ft min. or otherwise they would need a waiver. The Board asked if there was on-going monitoring and that the operation would not get closer to 6 ft. Mr. Larson discussed their monitoring system.
Discussed runoff, discharge from the pit can not exceed pre-excavation levels. Right now water leaves the site to the east and if this plan is approved it will not be leaving the site to the east. Mr. Larson gave the plans for water. Specific have not been stated. There are a number of options. Mr. Whitehill interrupted and said that if there are new proposals that have not been presented then it can’t be discussed here.
155-E-5 IV on page 27 was questioned. Mr. Larson said it discussed how runoff at the site will be handled.
Vol. 2 tab 22 B had the permit for the existing site. Mr. Pollock said tab 24A ..document to move them from 155-E to 485-15. Our ordinance has left the last few sentences off so they are more restrictive.
Mr. Pollack asked to give a comment, he made clear on page 3 of the wetland monitoring plan for a wetland issue which is he feels it is difficult to start fixing a problem before it arises.
Wetlands Inventory and Monitoring Program (post revisions) Oct. 2004 was read.
4:6 Performance Standards (zoning ordinance)
1. Vibration
Tab 10 has a record from 1990-present from personal documents…unscientific
or scientific, it is an interesting record. It shows that vibration
is detected off-site.
Mr. Wagner pointed to Tab 10 on the Opposition’s booklet and discussed
an October blast that had feelings of vibrations or air blast. Board
members commented that the performance standards are objective.
The history of the blasts were presented by GSC were only filed in the town records (one copy) and were referenced in the handouts.
4:6.2 NOISE
Complaints from the abutters are filed. Some were such as constant
noises such as back-up noise of the equipment and crusher. Discussed
as you strip the vegetation the noise will travel more.
4.6.3 Odor
4.6.4 SMOKE
Air quality permit is only the crusher. The haul road does not
take into consideration the blast. Never addressed what was in the
clouds that left the site after a blast.
Discussed degrading the quality of the air not just smoke. A
big cloud and has so much dust and then it is gone, not sure if there is
adverse consequences of that dust.
Mr. Wagner said one blast of the pit looked like vapors from the pit.
Agree the particular matter will settle out. Saw two different types
of plumes (Clouds)
Mr. Johnson said there should be concern over degradation of air quality
even without the blast, without the spectacular clouds you can catch on
videotape.
Mark said we really don’t know what is in there.
It may not be more than what is on Isaac Frye Highway in a dry season
when a truck goes by.
Wager: if it is a concern there could be treatments such as water
to suppress it.
Alec: we don’t know if it is harmful or not harmful but the applicant
has the burden.
4.6.5 DISCHARGE
Storm water management in place
4.6.6 Does not apply because it is not in the aquifer. (storm
water runoff)
Discussed prochlorate.
In the proposed groundwater program Nitrate will be monitored.
Discussion cont. Letter Sept. 2002 make reference to blasting at construction site to an aggregate site are different.
VOTE: Mr. Greene moved to continue to Dec. 21, 2004 at 7:30pm. Alec MacMartin seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.
GSC will not be pushing the application at the 15th meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Humphreys
Secretary