Continuation of December 8 and December 21, 2004 meetings

Members present: Mark Whitehill, Alec MacMartin, Selectmen’s Rep. Jerry Greene, Bruce Johnson, Brian Sullivan, Neil Faiman, David Holder.

VOTE: Mr. Green made a motion that with absence of resolution at 9:30pm to continue to another date.  Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Meeting will be held on January 5, 2005 at 7:30pm.  Vote passed unanimously.

The Board continued to review the checklist.

General Provisions:
4.1 was read by chairperson.  Following guidelines for the removal of sod, loam, clay, sand, or other natural inorganic material from any lot in any district to be safe, healthy and harmonious for all residents of Wilton (see booklet for more details)

Mr. MacMartin commented that with the gravel operations in town all but this one typically was removal of overburden of material but GSC is actually crushing, processing and removal of materials.  In the industrial zone, that is where it should be but when it is in a residential/agricultural zone, he has some concerns 4.1 can be satisfied.

Mr. Faiman discussed the impact of the excavation on the surround community.

Mr. Holder looked ahead to 4.4 which talks about special exemption and wondered if this is an exemption to expand into a residential area.  The statement, ”not affect the character of the neighborhood that it is proposed.”  He can’t see how this will not affect the neighborhood.  Discussed special exception.

Mr. Johnson commented the Board has something here that we have not had before “hindsight” because of the existing operation.  We can look at the existing situations and see if it is harmonious or advantageous to the neighborhood.

Currently the GSC operation is surrounded by the industrial zone and the issue of what happens on the property line is not a big issue as when it expands in the residential/agricultural district and now you are not only dealing with businesses but residential homes.  GSC said they will move it back…the applicant has the burden of proof.  We do have a past history and there are different explanations for it and things have gone wrong but I’m not sure if it is necessarily safe if you extend this type of operation into the residential/agricultural area.

Another safety concern is the sheer walls that will be left there.  During the operation there will be fencing and safety so a small child can’t get in there.  We have to look down the line, who will maintain the fences 500 years from now?   How long will it take for natural erosion will make it a rolling slope again?

Steve Wagner from NRPC made a statement about 155- E and the town’s ability to regulate.  A reasonable opportunity to mine or excavate material is not a guaranteed right.  For example, how we look at cell towers.  Is there a cell tower nearby that can do the work as to not impact communities or natural resources?  Might want to consider that in this case.

The Board discussed that it really didn’t find out what is in the clouds from blasting which definitely leaves the site.

In terms of harmonious atmosphere we have the esthetic part of it.  The existing operation in the area is in the industrial zone, it is allowed but as it spreads in to the neighborhoods it is not harmonious.

Mr. MacMartin made the statement according to allow the taking of the bedrock and gravel operation.  We talked about the four different time scales of that.  5-10-15 years then the operation is done and it is reclaimed and another 10-15 years it melts back into the landscape.  In this application there is no reclamation for the sheer walls or the ledge, just talking about the floor. We are looking at something much larger if the industrial operation runs it course and just stops.  Is that harmonious with the town? If you look back at the history, what people like about Wilton is its scenery, environment and we are not creating that here.  We are asked to create this outside the industrial zone and that is not harmonious.

Discussed the crusher that is not harmonious which is not going to move but as the buffer is torn down the noise will travel and it could be one big amphitheater.

Mr. Faiman said he is not persuaded that the Board would allowed a rock crusher in the residential zone.  There are performance standards for everywhere not just the residential zone.  He read from the master plan for performance standards.

Mr. Wagner said if the Board approves this plan it could ask to come back for a technological review to make it more suitable for the environment around it.  Also looking at 155-E.  The rock ledges can’t be reclaimed.  Could the Board ask for the ledges to be blasted down?  155-E-1.  The biggest impact on the residents will be blasting but in this case GSC would have to do more blasting to get the slopes down.  The Board mentioned that this option has not been proposed.  Mr. Wagner said no but it is something the Board could require.

Discussed 4.6.2 and 4.6.1 and performance standards.  One portion was read, ”if testimony of the people who abut and across the valley are valid”.

4.1 gives a great amount of digression to follow what is best for the neighborhoods.  Discuss where it will not be disadvantageous to the neighborhood.

Mr. MacMartin looked at disadvantageous in two different ways.  When the operation is done what can be done with the land.  Most pits have been reclaimed and have become subdivision.  This is disadvantageous because the town is left with 50 foot wall and 25 ft. ledge plus the floor is so close to the water table that it will have a life of its own.  Mr. Greene said that conservation takes land out of use.  Discussion continued about future use for the land.

Talked about the quality of life as to are people happy or unhappy in their homes because of this activity.  The master plan has gotten called out a few times.  Consider the impact on the community and how they feel about it.

Mr. Faiman discussed that Mr. Johnson’s comment of “hindsight” is not speculative but we are talking about an existing operations and it is reasonable that the expansion will be conducted in the new operation will be the same.  If 10 acres is disadvantageous then say 50 acres would be more disadvantageous.  Mr. MacMartin wondered if the scale of the operation increases you might be able to say the complaints will increase.

Mr. Faiman wanted to look at “otherwise undesirable”.  Reclamation becomes relative when talking about undesirable.  Discussed the photos of the pit taken from Pack Monadnock.  Discussed the dust clouds.

Discussed the two reports on property values.

4.1 is reclamation and think as far are reclamation goes will do well to attribute it to 8.0 because it takes it out of the realm of subjective and it becomes specifics.  Section A or F can’t be met by the application.  Page F-10 8.0 was read by Mr. Johnson.

Talked about the water leaving the site in its natural flow.  It won’t leave in the natural flow.

I don’t think this is a matter of opinion (the reclamation of the site) per Mr. Johnson.  We can look at what is there now and can vision it will just be on a greater scale.  I can envision it and have a hard time accepting a piece of land looking like that in the future.

The Conservation Commission’s report comes in under undesirable or disadvantageous to the neighborhood.  It talks about disruption of wildlife

Discussed the operation beginning years from now but Mr. Pollack corrected the Board that the applicant does not want to wait.  They would go immediately into the expansion.  They do not want to wait until the current area is exhausted to get into the new area.

Mr. Wagner discussed the functionality of the land after the pit is finished. In a recent Litchfield case, the end result would be a recreation lake created for the community but this is 100-year plan and the end project took into consideration what could be useful for the community.  The shelving would create a swimming area and deep water fishing.  It is thoughtful to think of what can come after for the use of the land.  Can’t see any use for after it is excavated.

Mr. Faiman discussed a framework for the discussion.  The proposal is an expansion of an existing use.  We can take the character of the operation as what it will be like and see the positive and negative aspects of the operation as it is expanded.  The neighborhood is affected by the proposed expansion and disadvantageous is undesirable to the neighborhood.

The Board has expert testimony from the applicant’s engineers.  We have testimony from abutters (although not expert) and we have to judge credibility and decide where we think the fact lie.

Problems are noise, blasting, floor and ledge reclamation and property values.

Noise:  operational noise, the crusher, back-up noise.  We have testimony as to what that affects have on people’s lives.  It is inconsistent on 4.6 restriction of noise.

Blasting: Neighbors have strong testimony regarding the blasting and the Board should not think that it won’t continue.  The Board has the expert’s comments.  Find the testimony of the abutters valid.  Blasting is inconsistent with vibrations and noise and disadvantageous to the neighborhood.

Standards for the excavation testimony.  The Board is asked to defer all reclamation for decades.  That is inconsistent and is disadvantageous and undesirable with the end result

Ledge reclamation:  The Board can’t say that it can’t be reclaimed in the future but we have ledges inconsistent with excavation regulations, undesirable and disadvantageous.

Property values: It is reasonably likely that there will be some effect and it will be relieved when operation is done and to continue the operation would be to continue the property values decline.

For all these reasons I would think we are prohibited from granting the application.

VOTE:  Mr. MacMartin made a motion to approve the application as submitted.  Mr. Greene seconded the motion.  Unanimous vote of denial.  Motion failed.

VOTE:  Mr. Johnson made a motion based upon the provisions set forth by 4.1 and 4.6 of the zoning ordinance and sections 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 of the excavation site plan review regulations, based upon the impact and duration of the excavation, in conjunction with our interpretation of the Master Plan as it pertains to zoning regulations in general and a failure to comply with 155-E:5 I that we (the planning board) deny the application.   Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

The appeal process will begin 10 days after the town clerk receives the decision.

The Board has a work session on December 29, 2004.  They can devote a portion of this time to the decision.  The Board should have a decision by January 10, 2005,

VOTE: Mr. Greene made a motion to adjourn at 9:07pm.  Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

Respectfully submitted by,
 

Kathleen Humphreys