Chairman Matt Fish called the meeting to order at 7:33pm.

Members present: NRPC Rep. Wagner, Jerry Greene, Bruce Johnson, Matt Fish, Mark Whitehill, Brian Sullivan, and Alt. Dawn Tuomala.

Page3, line 32:
“The applicant has a revised plan that still has 5-lots on it.”

VOTE: Mr. Johnson made a motion to accept the minutes as amended.  Mr. Whitehill seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

The Board conducted a review process of documents.

Al Larsen of Normandeau Associates made a presentation of documents.  Normandeau has requested a few items and North American Reserve (as technical consultant for GSC) has provided items.

-Proposed blasting designing monitoring vibration and control monitoring plan.
-Revised storm water management plan.
-Received approval for state for site specific permit which conditions include a requirement for a number of monitoring plans including a plan for ground water (submitted) surface water (submitted) wetland inventory and monitoring plan (submitted but want revised plan).
-Proposed an evaluation on impact on local real estate values (June meeting).
-Performed a Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species review for DRED.
-Performed surface water and ground water samples and have those results.
-Held several blasts observed by the Board and the public.  Normandeau and submitted blasting reports.
-Proposed a well replacement program to address issues relative to impact on neighboring properties.

One outstanding item is the wetlands inventory list.
Other than technical review of real estate we have not reviewed the documents.

Mr. Whitehill has items to address:
1. Wetland inventory monitoring plan.
2. Have to decide if we have to hire our own appraiser.
3. Make sure existing operation is up to compliance (reclamation bond) and right now there is no bond in place and there should be

$25,000 was the bond.  It was only for site plan of the railroad line in there and for a small area and didn’t have to do with the reclamation.  The existing pit was grandfathered and the applicant feels there should not be a bond on it.  The Board felt it still has to have a reclamation plan in place.  John MacLellan said there was a bond in place and it covered all the work for installing the railroad and when the work was completed the bond was released.  Mr. Pollack said they should address it.

Ann Jasper, Curtis Farm Rd.
1. In the list of plans read didn’t hear about plan to address the particulate matter in the air.
Al Larsen said it has been raised in issues previously and their equipment regulates it and they should have in place matters to suppress dust. On going issue of discussion on to how it would be monitored and the follow up point. And violations are still in questions as to what action will be taken.

2. In the future if this gets approved and if they were found to be in violation of plans what happens then?
Mr. Whitehill read pg. F-13 in the Excavation chapter (16) and read procedures for violations.

The Conservation Commission didn’t hear anything about natural habitat and animal corridors and where this is such a large project is affecting the whole area of getting from the mountain across the hill and so forth.  Natural breeding areas for the birds, deer, bear and what effect would that have on our community.  The nesting area in town is much different up there.  500 acres is needed.  Discussed the magnitude of multiple large lots being developed and the impact.

Alan Larsen said common practice in these reviews is rare threatened and endangered species and that has been done but they didn’t look into natural habitat and that is concern remains opened.

Spencer Brookes said it was in his original requests. Al Larsen said on file there is a letter from the CC about their concerns and our response was to do a species report and not sure how you want to proceed but we do have the capabilities to evaluate this.

Mr. Pollack said GSC have done their best to do these studies and regards to conservation and taken the lead from Normandeau.  The studies that were done on endangered species were industry standards.  He is not sure this is a wildlife corridor.

Matt Fish is concerned about particulate matter in the area and has been photographing it.   Year ago he went to selectmen and they said it was DES matter.  Requested to show videotapes of the blasts to the Board.  Mr. Whitehill said as private individuals they can submit them but the Board can’t sanction the actions.  Matt Fish felt GSC is ignoring the dust cloud issues.

AL Larsen said: it is documented and there is a formal complaint on file and with the DES.  There are two levels of rulemaking:
-Town relative to emissions and property boundary.
-At the state level under air pollution permit only covers emission form operational equipment and are not bound by that but in their plan they have a plan relative to dust control.

Setbacks and how close to the boundary is safe is still an open issue.

Jeff Kadtz discussed 3-D mapping programs that can show the volume of material being removed uphill.  Lets you rotate around in 3-D and find out what will happen to the existing topography.  Discussion.

Steve Wagner talked about the dust and monitoring system and if somewhere within the locality of Wilton there is data such as humidity and under certain atmospheric conditions and wind directions a baseline can be determined as to if it is the right time to do a blast.  If there is something in it (blast process) that is dangerous then there is some actions.  On-site system to set thresholds as to when is the least less conducive to impact residents.

Nicki Andrews said she said blasts were suppose to be during different times of the year and wondered if that has gone by the way side.  Mr. Whitehill said not technically and they have observed several blasts and they are not that different.  Ms. Andrews disagreed and said the blasts in July and June were not typical about what happens on her property from GSC’s operation.  Technical data is important and how you perceive it is something different.  Nicki said it is the difference of their windows rattling as to not rattling.  Discussed third tier blasts and observation.  GSC will consult with Green Mountain Explosives to determine if there will be a blast close to the area of concern.

John Shepardson skimmed through the two volumes and comments notice that some of the blasts there were complained the past has not been attributed to GSC.  Is there any way to determine which blasts were which in the history and hold GSC accountable for their blasts?  Rather than having comments that cast doubt on the complaints.  Mr. Whitehill said it is a fact that there have been complaints and they are not always GSC.

VOTE: Mr. Greene moved to hire an appraiser to review the real estate data.  Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.  Unanimously vote.

It was agreed that the Conservation Commission could forward a letter of habitat concerns to the Board elaborating on the previous letter, then GSC can review the letter and provide comment and then at that time if GCS want explanation, clarification then Normandeau can do that.

It was suggested to talk with town counsel about legal aspects of the statue and the project do we need anything else to put before the board.

Mark Whitehill and the town will receive blast notification call one day ahead from Green Mountain Blasting and then one hour before the expected blast.

Mr. Sullivan was concerned about final reclamation.  Discussed loam depth and steps of the final pit and monitoring wells.

The Board has requested for all parties concerned to begin to wrap up their final presentations and shoot for the September meeting to begin final discussions.

VOTE: Mr. Greene made a motion to continue to August 18, 2004.  Mr. Johnson seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.

Richard Drew was in for the applicants and said all outstanding issues are complete.  See file for Fire Chief’s letter.

VOTE: Mr. Greene made a motion to approve the plan.  Mr. Johnson seconded it.  Ms. Tuomala abstained.  Motion passed.

The applicant is responsible for $180 for NRPC fees.  Plus HCRD fees for unknown figure because Mr. Drew is uncertain about the number of easement documents that will be recorded.

Dawn Tuomala is off the Board to represent Chalet Susse.

Mr. Fish said his advice was if there is a suit filed against the town then not to hear the case until the Board consults with town counsel.

Mr. Wagner wondered if the procedure were rights in the way this case went and if the minutes should be amended.  Discussed procedures.  Discussed how individuals viewed the status of the case.

Mr. Johnson read the Chalet Susse vote on page 4 of 6 of May 19, 2004.

Mr. Johnson said it appears to be a continued case.  Their attorney (Fernald) feels that it is not a continued case and therefore the Board should see advice of town counsel.

Ms. Fenald said that if there was a vote then that started the clock ticking for an appeal.  We had to act to file a suit to keep their options open.

Fred Rodell discussed how he felt the case went and if they had a revision of the plan.  He said they are not working on a revised plan.  He wants to represent a 4-lot and see how the Board feels about it.  “The plan (have to assume Mr. Rodell is talking about the 5-lot plan?-note from kmbH) works well and we had the Army Corps of Engineering approval and all other approval so I need a technical reason why.  I never got a piece of paper that said what happened”, said Rodell.

Mr. Wagner commented that one side felt there was a clear decision and the reason for the appeal and they would not have the authority to continue the case and the case would be closed.  If we didn’t have the authority to continue the case and we have a notice issue and we didn’t notice the meeting and have we broken the chain.

There is a conflict of interest for Attorney Little therefore the town will hire Bill Drescher as attorney on this case.

Discussed that if town counsel said the case was denied then the applicant needs a reason why it was denied.

Discussed if a case is denied there is a form with a written reason but it was not done on this case because the Board thought it was a continued case.  If something is denied and there is a decision it spells out their recourse and it is spelled out what their options are.

Beth Fernald of Bradley, Burnett, Kinyon, 603-352-2030

VOTE: Mr. Johnson made a motion to continue the case upon the advice of town counsel.  Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.  Mr. Whitehill and Mr. Greene opposed.  Motion was approved.

The project is 40 acres of land and the applicant is proposing to create four new lots.  Three lots will be accessed by a private drive.  The other will be accessed from the existing driveway that goes with the house.

Discussed building envelopes, which are not on the plan.

-Obtained zoning board approval to impact 1,300 ft. of wetlands impact.
-Dredge and fill permit was filed.
-Discussed with the road agent the location of the driveway and suggested to trim trees on the east and come to the agreement to give the town a quarter of an acre for future road improvements.  400 ft. length and extends 40 feet into the property and will assist with future road improvement.  Also easement for water to run onto the property which would be where the water would naturally run.
(see file for easement language) (see file for road agent’s letter)

Discussed fire ponds.  There is one on McGettigan Rd. on Shoemaker property. A dry hydrant on this pond would be agreeable with the owner of the property and the fire department.

To do list:
A note stating “no further subdivision allowed” will be added to the notes.
Bounds need to be walked prior to approval.
Submit road name to selectmen
Details of culverts
Cross-section of the driveway
House envelopes on the plan
Wetland impacts on plan

Ms. Tuomala requested the impact of wetlands be on the plan and with the wetland approval with square foot on the plan on the NHDS approval in the notes section (wetlands approval).  Asked about culverts.

The Board asked if the Conservation Commission had concerns about the culverts.  Mr. Brookes walked the site and “it was very moderate and it was expedited as far as looking at house envelopes we didn’t look at that”.

Mr. Wagner was concerned with lot 67-1.  It is such a small and how do you police structures going up post-construction.  Mr. Shea said that it has to be looked at closely during construction.  Housing envelopes were determined.

Discussed $4,300 per lot for voluntary road contribution.

VOTE: Mr. Whitehill made motion to continue.  Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Vote was unanimous, motion passed.

The Conservation Commission was responsible for adding the guardrails to the plan and since the applicant lowered the driveway then it is not a greater impact, said Spencer Brookes.  He felt the proposed riff-raff was not good for animals or esthetically appealing.

The wetland impact is not being changed.

My recommendation for guardrails elimination would be a minimum 12’ paved or graveled section with minimum 3-1 slope with erosion control-either rip rap or seeded an loamed. – Road Agent’s letter  (in file)

VOTE: Mr. Whitehill made a motion to accept the recommendations of the road agents.  Mr. Greene seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

“I met with Kevin 7-12-04 and feel this replacement will be an approval and upgrade with better sight distance and slope grade.” Signed Steve Elliott (in file)

The Board discussed if the driveway was constructed as approved.

Discussed B-21-6 driveway and the possibility of granting driveways for three more curb cuts when they were careful about the number of driveway that went in on this subdivision

Discussed Mr. Trio talking to abutter about driveway relocation and find an agreeable solution.  Discussed solutions.  Discussed the builder has some responsibility to do things correctly.

Mr. Trio is not clear what they will go back to Pratt for and his position is still the same.

The Board said they needed a month to look into the issue.

VOTE: Bruce Johnson made a motion to adjourn at 10:30pm.  Matt Fish seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Humphreys, Secretary