Members present: Alec MacMartin, Neil Faiman, Co-Chairman Brian Sullivan and Andrew Fairbank.  Mr. Sullivan will chair the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss proposed amendment for the land use for a Gravel Excavation District.

Mr. Faiman addressed provided a purpose statement.  The purpose is based upon recent experience that was adopted many years ago of what was expected use and based on recent cases there are areas of town that excavation was not suitable.  The Board looked at what is a reasonable location and what is expected.  The area the Board is proposing is the east side of Rt. 31 and Russell Hill; a rural part of town with proven gravel deposits.  It has historically been used as gravel area and has good material to be used plus there are not many homes.  This is a first draft and comments and opinions are welcomed here tonight.

Mr. MacMartin added that one of the things the Board heard over time was concerned about set backs between excavation and areas around them.  The amendment is addressing that concern with setbacks with attempts to move them back.  Discussed 9-B-1.  The Board is trying to create a district where gravel excavation is the norm.  9B-4 has different requirements.

There are existing site plan review regulations and will propose to continue to use those as part of the process.  The goal is to place the gravel activity in the town, going forward, to areas that have ready access to primary transportation routes.  Rt. 31 and it’s access to Rt. 101 met that need.

Mr. Richard Greeley asked, “why not move it by railroad?”  The answer was the Board thought of that but it was their understanding that that part of town that has access to the railroad has existing excavation or are depleted with a few exception.

Mr. Bob Doucette commented “This whole thing stinks of prejudice.  One section of this is in court.  I don’t want to be paying lawyer bills…this is prejudice. So you are giving this to two land owners only”.

Chairperson Sullivan commented that this proposal wouldn’t stop current gravel operations.

Mr. MacMartin refered Mr. Doucette to 9B-2.

Attorney Will Sullivan spoke on behalf of the Quinn Brothers. He asked if in the introduction at the end of 4.1 he might suggest to put in language that exempts from this provision either grandfathered operations or operations that are already permitted.

Attorney Sullivan also added “assuming this is an overlay district and does not prohibit or impact the use as industrial use…he felt that should be clear.

Two provisions that Attorney Sullivan does not agree with:
1. Provision for 8” (eight inches) of loam is pretty excessive.  There is a conflict of loam stockpiled.  He gave an example of if an operation has two 2” of loam on the site and spread it back they need 6 more inches?  He wondered if the board felt someone has 35 acres that they have to put 8” of soil down they may have to go out and strip 150 acres on another site to cover the 8” on this 35 acre site.

Mr. MacMartin said if you are trying to reestablish a forested area and the current conditions are not conducive to it is suggested that 8” is appropriate.  If you go out and look at what is being regenerated we have lots of open land but if you are trying to reforest then you need more than what is there.

Discussed that 8” is appropriate or bring back what was on the site before the excavation.

2. 3:1 slope has been a constant issue.  155-E in terms of sand and gravel are natural repose of the property and gravel has a 35% slope. A 2:1 sloped is a 26% slope and a 3:1 slope is 18%.  There are areas where it may be appropriate and what makes sense is if it stays up upon the land is better to create regulations.  A 35 degrees reposes.  Tom Quinn handed out a diagram to illustrate the slope.

Hal Levine of Wilton said the thickness of the soil is irrelevant.  If the soil is spread and not properly seeded then there will be nothing.  He believes reclamation is more important.  Co-Chair Sullivan said could be a problem but the Board requires a reclamation bond to cover such a situation.

Mr. Doucette inquired if an adjacent piece of property will be zoned out in this proposal.  The Board answered if it was an operating pit prior to 1989 the state law oversees local law.

Mr. Greeley said stone would be needed.  He can image getting ledge out without blasting.  The Board was told the current pits have 40 years of stone left.  They can’t expand to newly acquired land.  Mr. Greeley said he does not think the blasting should be left out of this proposal.

Nikki Andrews, Wilton, wanted to address blasting.  She lives a half-mile from Granite State Concrete’s quarry and states that blasting is an issue at her house.  She feels it quake and creak.  “If PVA has solved their problem it didn’t solve my problem.  Feel this is a good thing the town is doing this”, said Ms. Andrews.

Mr. Greeley inquired about the timeframe of this proposal.  The Board said they decided to make the draft over a year and a half ago.  Mr Greeley felt that “two members at one meeting decided to draft this amendment”.  The Board disputes that statement.  The time line for getting things in for a warrant is the last quarter of the year.  It was drafted 3-4 days before the last Planning Board meeting.  It was stated that Granite State Concrete was at the November meeting but withdrew their application without prejudice because of the proposed zoning changes.

It was announced that the date on the minutes where this proposal was drafted and posted was incorrect, it should have been written December 9th but will be amended the next time the Board meets.

David Andrews from Wilton questioned the wording of 9B-2.  The second line of one should read “north of King Brook Road: on line 4.

Regarding 9b-4 Ms. Andrews inquired about cleaning the gravel.  The Board understands that cleaning is part of a typical excavation and it is not prohibited.

Mr. Doucette wondered if no one else in the town could remove gravel from their property?  He was informed that this proposal implies to commercial excavation only and nothing will prohibit the homeowner from redoing the contours at their property.

Mr. Doucette asked if waivers could be given in certain situations.  The Board cannot know that.  It was explained that there are avenues for adjustments and that is to apply to the ZBA.

Jeff Kandt of Wilton inquired if it is possible to get a vote from the Board prior to town meeting if they support this proposal. The process was explained as the Board submits a draft, gets input from a public hearing, they can make changes if necessary then the Board votes if it will go on the ballot.  Typically that vote occurs the last week of January because it has to occur a certain period of time before town meeting.

Paul Brochu wondered about truck traffic.  Will there be restriction on it and are there any restrictions on trucks in town?  It was answered that there are certain restrictions.  The Board asked Mr. Quinn if there are restrictions in the old Quinn lot.  His opinion is that the traffic will increase.

Mr. Doucette felt that when GSC is closed then the traffic will come this way looking for concrete.  He sited New Castle.  He has five children and does not want traffic to increase in Wilton.

John Shepardson, addressed a question to audience members from GSC but they declined to answer because this meeting was suppose to be about the proposed amendment.  The Board agreed that the meeting is about the amendment and it is getting off track.

Co-Chairperson Sullivan wanted to clarify that this proposal is for new excavations or approved activities in town. There are limits for the number of trips based upon zoning and the total amount of acres.  Grandfathered operations don’t have those restrictions.

Mr. Brouche believes it will be a problem in the future.  He also said that one operation in town that trucks out 90% on the rail will be closed down.

VOTE: Mr. Faiman moved to schedule a meeting (work session) for Dec. 7, 2005 at 7:30pm to discuss proposed zoning amendments including comments heard here tonight in regards to the proposed amendments for the land use regulations.  Mr. Fairbank seconded the motion.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to adjourn.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to refund to Granite State Concrete the excess application fees over what was already spent by the board.  Mr. Faiman seconded it.   The motion passed unanimously.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin renewed the motion to adjourn.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:30pm.
 

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Humphreys
Secretary