Members present: Bruce Johnson, Chairman Matt Fish, Alt. David Holder, Selectmen’s Rep. Jerry Greene, Mark Whitehill, Vice-Chairman Brian Sullivan, Alt. Gail Hoar, Neil Faiman, Alec MacMartin, Alt. Dawn Tuomala, Alt. William Condra and NRPC Rep. Steve Wagner

Page two.  “If it is a sign there is one and it is not allowed” should read “If it not a sign then it should not be before this board”, in the statement by Mr. Johnson.

Page 7, line 33: change to “200 trips per day” per Mr. Tom Quinn.

VOTE: Mr. Whitehill made a motion to approve as amended.  Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Mr. MacMartin abstained.  Motion passed.

Matt Fish reclused himself and is replaced David Holder.  Mark Whitehill will chair this case. Alt. Gail Hoar is reclused.

Dick Rockwood, the Town of Wilton’s Assistant Assessor to the Selectmen, was asked to talk about property values in relation to the gravel pit expansion.

Mr. Rockwood informed the group that he was asked to look at a letter on behalf of the Board from Mr. Thompson of Thompson Consulting Services.  “Mr. Thompson made a statement in the first sentence when he drew his conclusion that there is no denomination of values as result of the expansion of this particular pit and it says that in the first sentence.  Having read the letter one or twice, I’m inclined to agree with what he said as he said it but he didn’t in my mind follow it far enough to property values.  The expansion will not influence property values as they are influenced.  The circle of influence is a half a mile to a mile or it exceeds that (as drilling).

Mr. Rockwood went on to explain “Assume homes a mile within the pit won’t be affected by the expansion of this pit.  The properties within that mile have an inherent value that is less than areas not influenced by the pit; say we are talking property values of Abbot Hill that won’t be influenced.”

Mr. Rockwood went on to explain that “in an abutting community he did a brief analysis on properties influenced by Granite State Concrete and the former Quinn Pit and compared square foot and found a 15% difference in the selling price, which tells me there is a denomination of values.”

Mr. Thompson took sales and re-sales of the property.  He took the sale for example on April Drive in Londonderry and Litchfield (the same pit which is increasing in size into Litchfield by a 175 acre expansion).  Thompson found these properties increased by 18.7% and the other by 16% …so he said there is no denomination of values.  My denomination of values would be if this area is increasing by 16-17% what is the rest of the town increasing at?  My denomination is if these are increasing at 16% and other areas by 20% then there is denomination of the area.

Mr. Rockwood assumes if the pit expands the radius will change and it will encompass more area and will be influenced as the pit grows.  This data will be prevalent and able to track.  There will be a denomination of values but it won’t be enough data to devise a number from it.

Mr. Faiman asked Mr. Rockwood if in his opinion the existing gravel were to be shut down overnight and reclaimed, would that result in change of property values in the immediate area still be effected by the pit?  “Mr. Rockwood said, “it may”, because what you eliminated my not be present, dust, noise but the ledge and hole in the ground will still exist.  If you have sight of that from your property that would be influenced.

Bill Coronduff inquired if as a consultant to the Selectmen would you give the houses in close proximity the benefit of a depressed area because the existence of the pit.  Mr. Rockwood replied that several weeks ago he was asked to do this and he said no.  The First question would be did the revaluation do this?  Route 31 North was given some consideration for that.

Dick Smith.  “I have heard what I consider a hard rock mining operation (gravel pit) and by definition that is a gravel pit and will say one thing that this summer I didn’t have a problem with the blasting over there and it has been quiet but I can hear the crusher from early morning to late afternoon.  But the summer before the blasts shook my house and it was a lot.  Is this a gravel pit or a quarry?”  Mr. Whitehill answered that it is an excavation pit.  Stone is not being taken out just aggregate.

On the analysis that everyone has done it is a blasting crushing gravel situation identical to this pit.

GSC’s attorney Ari Pollack mentioned the ordinance references a scope as “the neighborhood” and asked for assist with that term.  Mr. Rockwood answered rather than using the term “neighborhood”, the “area of influence” is a better term when deciding denomination of values and it can go into many different neighborhoods.  Neighborhoods can be surrounding properties.  Did the Vision people in their assessment do this…I think so.

Mr. Thompson was hired by Granite State.  The Board can not hire Mr. Rockwood because of a conflict of influence but can get his professional opinion.

Dale Walker: Easier to measure the effects of property values next to a hole but difficult to measure values due to increase of large trucks that will be driving through more than a city block…can you measure that?  Dick said that comes out of the whole operation…you have increase trucks, dust.  All of those things combined will have denomination of values by 50% or can I say 1% is due to trucking?  I can’t break it up.

It was asked how GSC perceives this site 50 years from now.  Mr. Pollack said those records have been submitted and those records are available.

Dave Guistrom gave his professional opinion of the future of real estate values since he is real estate agent…he feels they will go down.  Mr. Whitehill said there is no data on that.

John Griffith from Isaac Frye Highway said “I’ll take what Mr. Rockwood said is the property values have already been negatively effected by the existing quarry and to say they will be more effected will be correct.  Mr. Rockwood replied “half way”.  He said it won’t be further impacted but as it expands it will encompass more properties.  Discussion continued.

Mr. MacMartin talked about Rockwood’s definition of the “Spear of Influence” and we had the discussion about the definition of a neighborhood trying to reconcile the two and if this pit is allowed to expand is the spare of influence limited to the immediate areas as it goes in one direction or does that include area next to or across the valley that can see it or hear it?  Mr. Rockwood said: it won’t be a perfect spear, it will be different as someone who can see it out their front door vs. the back door.  “I would say in general terms would be in the general direction of the expansion”, said Rockwood.

Hal Levine from Curtis Farm Road asked, “Do you believe properties outside the spear of influence will appreciate at a certain rate and do you think the properties inside the spear will appreciate at a slower rate.”  Mr. Rockwood said yes.  My definition is if other properties are at a higher rate then what is it attributed to.  He believes it will increase at a slower rate.

Kerry Drohan inquired would it take for the town to hire a consultant of it’s own, which the Board has not decided to do yet.  Mr. Rockwood addressed a legitimate study could cost $1,000-$5,000.

Annie Jasper of 70 Curtis Farm Road inquired about increased truck traffic.  Mr. Whitehill said that GSC states that the trucks will not increase and the blasts will not increase either.  There is no limit on the present pit but a limit on the expansion.

New resident Elizabeth Arsenault inquired who is responsible for determining their values and how they will be taxed. She was informed it was the Selectmen.

ABUTTER PRESENTATION:
Attorney Bob McKenney began the abutter’s presentation and reviewed of the process of their report.  See file for large binder called Index of Opposition of Submissions September 15, 2004, Received on Sept. 15, 2004.

See file for copy of video presentation in DVD format titled “wiltonpitstop.org”

Matt Fish made a presentation.  See file: Statement to the Town of Wilton PB
Why the Granite State Concrete Application to expand the Mining Operation Cannot Comply with Wilton’s Zoning Ordinance.  Prepared by Matthew S. Fish 9-16-04

Hal Levine, professional geologist, made a presentation.
See file dated September 15, 2004 called Groundwater Issues and Concerns Relevant to Mine Expansion.

Laura Provost made a presentation.
See file for letter dated September 8, 2004 from Pierre and Laura Provost.
RE: Granite State Concrete Company, Inc. – Application for Proposed Excavation Expansion

David Andrews read a letter from the Wilton Heritage Commission.
See file for letter from Wilton Heritage Commission dated September 9, 2004.
Subject: Granite State Concrete Expansion Application.  Signed Stanley T, Young, Chair

Bob McKenney made a presentation.
See file for document dated September 15, 2004 signed by Robert McKenney.  RE:  Excavation Application for Proposed expansion to existing Granite State Concrete facility located off Rt. 31, Wilton, New Hampshire.

Abutter Annie Jasper asked Granite State to withdraw their application and they denied her request.

Dion Lewis is concerned about water quality and health concerns with chemicals such as Perchlorate, which inhibits iodide absorption.  Granite State’s Attorney Ari Pollack will asked blasting contractors to look into this and will provide details if necessary.

VOTE: Mr. Sullivan made a motion to continue to October 20, 2004.  Mr. MacMartin seconded it.  Motion passed unanimously.

Alt. Hoar & Mr. Fish return to the Board.  Mr. Fish will continue to chair the meeting.

David Holder is off the Board.
VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made motion to continue the case due to pending litigation.  Mr. Whitehill seconded it.  Motion passed unanimously.

We should go forward with an informal non-voting meeting.  The applicant would like to discuss things as to what to do next.

Earl Sandford filling in for Ray Shea made the presentation.

Outstanding items completed:
-Corners have been set for all lots
-Wetlands scientist stamp is on the plan
-Added note 17 about fire cistern
-67-1 note 19 about septic
-Letter from road agent dated Sept. 7, 2004
-Updated abutters on the plan

Mr., Sullivan discussed easements and mortgage for road improvement. Discussed the process for recording the deeds and the documents.

Discuss removing the knoll per the road agent’s letter dated September 7, 2004.

To do list:
-Figure out mortgage with Attorney Little
-Get title opinion first position
-Road agent’s concern regarding the knoll
-Discuss with BOS possible mortgage on Mr. Sullivan’s office building
-Dry hydrant test
-Line drawing for the town tax map

VOTE: Mr. Whitehill made a motion to continue to October 20, 2004.  Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

Tom Quinn was present for the applicant.
The Board reviewed a fax from Will Sullivan regarding an agreement regarding the amount of acreage opened at one time.  It will be forwarded to Attorney Little.  (See file: from Cheever & Sullivan, PA dated Sept. 10, 2004 to Alec MacMartin  (Fax No. 11).

See file for letter from Emery & Garrett dated Aug. 27, 2004.  Signed Daniel J. Tinkham.

Sheet 3 of 6 addressed concern in construction sequence #13.   After 2 acres in lot E-23 are excavation before they will temporarily seed two acres on lot 173 before excavating more land on E-23.

Erosion control notes #8 for seed mix.  Seed selected from notes on former plan.

Sheet 2, note 3: Clarified by adding the words “10 trips per truck per day”  roughly 200 trips per day.

It was determined to increase the bond.  Need to cover the other two acres.  Add $8,000 to the current bond for lot 173.

VOTE: Mr. Whitehill made a motion to continue to October 2004.  Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. MacMartin is replaced by Mr. Condra while Mr. Faiman is replaced by Mr. Holder.

Sam Proctor presented the case.  This is a joint application between Talisman Properties and U.S. Cellular, who owns lot F-12-4.  Greg Michaels is the attorney for U.S. Cellular but was not present.  The applicants want to eliminate Industrial Drive and release the bond.

A letter dated August 10, 2004 of the ZBA’s decision was read.  See file Discussed the ZBA variance and the creation of a non-conforming lot.

See file for copy of proposed deed of easement and declaration of common use of driveway.  Forward to Mr. Little.

If the cell service ends need to do one of two things, bring the lot into conforming status or remove the cell tower.

Phil DuPont asked if any other access other than Rt. 101 can be used and the answer was no was answer.

The applicant submitted the new bond dated august 24, 2004 by TF Moran to replace the old bond by $600 more.

VOTE: Mr. Whitehill made a motion to continue to October 20, 2004.  Mr. Greene seconded it.  Motion passed unanimously.

Dawn Tuomala presented the case.  See file for letter of authorization.

Letter from Fire Chief (see file)
The property is 4.8 acres total in the Residential District and is within the Aquifer Protection District and partially within the 100-year flood plain.  The applicant is proposing a 1.3-acre lot and 3.3 acres will remain with the current house.  The new home will have town water and sewage.

It falls under the state’s 250 foot Shoreline Protection Act.  Discussed setback.  Add a note on the plan to look at State RSA’s, see note 12.

See file for road agent’s letter but a new permit is required.  See file for sewage and water approval.

Discussed building envelope on the plan and Mrs. Tuomala will do that.

See file for waivers filed by Ms. Tuomala.
re: lot l-31 Ernest Hutchinson.
1. Soils certification by a certified wetlands scientist.  The soils shown on the plan are from the Hillsborough County Soil Survey.  Wetlands on the property were marked by a certified wetlands scientist.
2. Location of all existing building and septic system leach fields within 100 feet.  The area is an existing neighborhood with numerous homes on lots smaller than the proposed new lot.  The proposed house will be set back at least 35 feet from Draper Road and more than 100 feet from Intervale Road.

Some board members had a concern that they would be approving a lot that is less conforming and they can’t do that.  Discussion continued.  It was discussed if the case needed to go before the ZBA.  Neil Faiman stepped down from the Board and David Holder took his place.

Discussed l:31.2.  Corrine Cutler, the future owner of property, asked questions.

State subdivision is pending.

VOTE: Mr. Greene made a motion to continue.  David Holder seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

David O’Hara was present for the applicant.
The property is 19.55 acres total.  Discussed the lots are not numbered correctly.

Reviewed the acre size for the lots which each lot has sufficient road frontage.  Existing curb cuts are where the openings are and no damage will be done to the rock walls. No wetlands impact.
See file for Road Agent’s letter dated 8-26-04.

Waivers requested:
1. Certification of soil types
2. Location of soil boundaries and HISS

There is an easement on the property and details were discussed.  They need to be on the plan.  Driveways need to be on the plan also.

Discussed Restrictions in Note 19 that specifies any building and growth disturbance will be done between Abbot Hill and the driveway.

Discussed snowmobile easement.

VOTE: Mr. Greene moved to continue the case until October.  Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

VOTE: Mr. Greene moved to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously at 11:05pm.

Respectfully submitted,
 

Kathleen Humphreys
Secretary