Planning Board Minutes 01.23.18

January 31, 2018 Karen Hambleton Minutes, Planning Board 0

Planning Board Minutes 1.23.18

Town of Bradford

Meeting called to order by Pam Bruss at 7:00 P.M.

Members Present: Pam Bruss, Chair; Claire James, Vice Chair; Sonny Harris, Carol Troy, Garrett Bauer

Alternates Present: Michael James

Members Absent: Bob Close

Alternates Absent: Steve Chase, Doug Troy

Review & Consideration of Minutes – January 9, 2018

Minutes of 1.9.18 were approved: 4 yes, 1 abstain

Review of Public Hearing Process and Procedures and other notes

Pam Bruss reviewed the process and procedures for a public hearing with both the members of the public and the board members, prior to opening the public hearing for Mr. William Heselton.  She also explained that the board has a “rotating secretary”, until such time as a permanent secretary is hired.

Call to session for Public Hearing – Map 9, Lot 45 (Junkyard, Owner – William Heselton)

Select Board Rep., Sonny Harris, recused himself, due to personal involvement with the property.  Alternate Michael James was seated.  Select Board member, John Pfeifle, inquired as to why no Select Board members were able to sit on the Planning Board for this particular case.  Pam Bruss explained that John’s statement of public support for the proposal, combined with the fact that the Select Board is the final permitting body for licensure of junkyards in town, could be considered a conflict of interests.  (Also see RSA 673:14 I. & II.)  Jim Bibbo stated his position on the recusal – namely that a member was not obligated to recuse him or herself but that it was a choice.

The hearing was then called into session and a summary of notification was given by Pam Bruss as follows:

  • 20 public hearing notices were sent out
  • 11 were returned via return receipt
  • The public hearing itself was posted on the town website, at the town office, the town post office and the Concord Monitor.

A description of the proposal was also given:

  • A 1.4 acre wooded lot to be used as a junkyard
  • No new buildings, other than a garage structure to be erected
  • Copies of the site plan and other relevant materials were made available to all attendees
  • All required fees have been paid
  • Application was accepted as complete on 11/14/17.

Presentation of site plan by applicant was given (Attorney Bob Carey, on behalf of Mr. Heselton):

  • Total property is 123 acres, of which only 1.4 acres will be used for proposed junkyard
  • Discussed the design of site plan being appropriate given project proposal
  • Confirmed that Zoning Board required compliance with DES regulations
  • Discussed proposed removal and containment of liquids (removal to be done on concrete slab, containment of gas, diesel, antifreeze, brake/transmission fluid in 55 gallon drums). Double containment of materials in drums to be achieved via metal shipping containers with a one-inch lip, stored under the overhang of the garage.  A concrete pad will serve as the garage floor.  Garage will be unheated.
  • Stacking will be a maximum of 2-3 vehicles.
  • Driveway was redesigned to accommodate 20’ width, per Fire Marshal and state recommendations.
  • Handling of tires will comply with DES standards and will be stored under cover in a box truck. (One box truck proposed).

Ms. McCourt indicated that site design accommodated low impact use, and described the “intake” process and other site plan details:

  1. Vehicle goes to the garage
  2. Fluids from vehicle are drained using best management standards
  3. Tires will be removed
  4. Other car parts to be salvaged
  5. Remaining carcass will be stored in rows designated as per site plan, with 20’ wide access
  6. OSHA standards for metal storage were discussed. OSHA allows for up to eleven (11), fifty-five (55) gallon drums to be stored in a metal container without fire suppressant. Mr. Heselton’s site plan proposes four (4), fifty-five (55) gallon drums.
  7. No additional need for oil/grease containment beyond the 2 detention ponds was also discussed. The ponds will control the flow to be less than or equal to the flow coming off the site today. PVC piping with holes is the draining mechanism.
  8. A 6’ high chain link fence enclosure is proposed.
  9. Three (3) parking spaces are proposed.

Questions/Comments from the Planning Board members, post site plan presentation:

  1. Claire James asked how likely it would be that a double containment system would fail.

Ms. McCourt responded that given the 1” lip of the metal container, any leakage would be immediately evident on the floor and could then be dealt with.  Pam Bruss added that per a conversation she had with Don Watson (DES), that DES finds the 1” lip and the double containment to be a good solution.

  1. Claire addressed the 6’ high chain link fence and asked if Mr. Heselton would be willing to use opaque, wood fencing instead, given the aesthetics. Carol Troy added that even such a fencing on the side facing the road only, would be a better option.

Mr. Carey responded that the 400’ + woodland buffer between the site and the road already more than meets the requirements of the state but that Mr. Heselton may be amenable to the use of green, plastic inserts in the chain link fence, to reduce any visibility.

  1. Pam inquired into the dismantling of vehicles and stacking.

Mr. Heselton stated that dismantling was not likely unless there were parts to be taken out.  A question came up regarding the maximum number of cars proposed to be stored on the property.  The ZBA was presented with a 50 car maximum and based their decision on this.  Stacking was not specifically discussed during the zoning board approval process.

  1. Claire asked how many cars the rows hold.

The rows hold a total of 100 cars or so.

  1. Pam inquired as to whether this proposal will be a junkyard or a salvage yard.

Mr. Heselton responded that the site will hold not just the cars, but some steel/other metal junk as well.

  1. Claire inquired as to whether or not signage is proposed.

Mr. Heselton responded that there will be no signage.

Supporters of the proposal spoke:

  1. Mr. David Symkowitz, via letter
  2. John Pfiefle – Spoke in favor of bringing in new businesses, including the current proposal
  3. Tom Dunne
  4. Steve Patten – Stated he was impressed with Mr. Heselton’s efforts to clean up and meet the requirements placed on him earlier last summer. Stated Mr. Heselton is a great man doing a great thing.
  5. Dave Symkowitz, Jr. – Stated that per town regulations, this is supposed to be an encouraged endeavor. Continued that Mr. Heselton appears to be willing to do what it takes to make it work, and that this operation will not be the town’s biggest expense.
  6. Barry Wheeler – Stated he is 100% in favor of the project.
  7. Alan Grandy – Stated he has known the Heselton family for a long time and believes he will do a good job.
  8. Sonny Harris – Stated his scientific credentials and affirmed that this proposal is a very good use of the land.

Opposers of the proposal spoke:

  1. Don Clarke – Stated he is an abutter, with property across from the junkyard, and that the board holds a responsibility to all town residents, not just the applicant. Mr. Clarke cited a signed petition against the effort, which included 60+ names. He conceded that the previously mentioned clean-up efforts were good, but that for years the owner of the property has been operating an unlicensed junkyard on his property.  He appealed to board members to impose the most rigorous standards possible with respect to the proposed project, and asked that the board proceed slowly (ex. – 20-30 vehicles to start with). Also commented that the driveway is a straight shot to the site itself and suggested a bend in the driveway to limit visibility.
  2. Laurie Buchar – Stated that she has been opposed to the project from the beginning. She has had a long family relationship with the Heseltons and given this, did not complain about the mess on the property prior to this proposal. Ms. Buchar further pointed out that Mr. Heselton only acted when advised by DES to clean up his property, and suggested monitoring through the Green Yards program as well as becoming certified with the program.  She presented photos of the site to the board members, taken in fall of 2016 prior to the clean-up.  She also pointed out that the Historic District Commission had not been given notice of the public hearing, and shared a statement of their opposition.  Further comments included: concern about handling of fluids, stormwater study was done during the driest year on record in years, and a request that the most stringent restrictions possible be applied.
  3. Josh Klein – Stated his concerns with respect to polluted water going into the bog and is concerned about the number of cars as well as operating hours of the business. Mr. Heselton responded that the current hours proposed are Thurs. & Fri., 9-5pm. Further concerns included rows of cars, stacking and tires, project spread/creep beyond designated 1.4 acres, mercury and refrigerants, disposal of batteries, fuel filters/tanks, above ground storage tanks.  Inquired as to whether or not storage containers will be purchased new or used and whether they will be inspected prior to use.  Mr. Heselton responded that he would like them to be as new as possible, but will likely buy used.  Mr. Klein expressed his concern about the “impact of the quality of life” on the road where this business is being proposed.

Other comments and questions:

  1. Jim Bibbo – Asked if any signage was required. Also pointed out that he could not see anyone standing on site from the road the day of the site walk, suggesting that visibility from the road would not be an issue.
  2. Rebecca Herman – Asked where crushing would take place and pointed out that crusher would have to meet all BMP requirements. Residual would have to be handled by crushing operation. Also asked if electric cars will be processed there.  Mr. Heselton responded that no electric cars would be incoming.
  3. Carol Troy – asked about the distance from the site to Rowe Mountain Rd. (It is roughly double the distance to County Rd.)
  4. Sonny Harris – Commented that the quality of the soil, near-by plant species, etc. lent themselves well to the proposal.
  5. Fritz Giddings – Stated that it would be impossible to prove diminishing property values resulting from a junkyard business.
  6. Don Clark – Responded that property value decline is indeed a concern, as how many people would want to live near/buy property across from a junkyard?
  7. Josh Klein – Asked if there has been any study done to determine impact to amphibious life. He also requested a maximum number of tires to be specified.
  8. Ann Eldridge – Spoke on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Eldridge asked how fluids would be directed to the detention ponds from the storage shed/garage, as well as how potential floating oils in the detention ponds would be handled. Ms. McCourt responded that detention ponds can be cleaned with a backhoe.  Ms. Eldridge suggested to the board that they may want to hire an independent engineer, and referenced 2 unregistered yards in need of cleaning up.  Pam responded that the yards were cleaned up prior to Zoning Board hearing.  Ms. Eldridge further requested that the junkyard be entered into the Green Yards program, and that best management practices be filed annually at the town office.  She was also concerned about runoff onto impervious surfaces.
  9. Mark Goldberg, Fire Chief – Specified that he was neither for, nor against the project, and that his job is to make sure the laws of the state and town are followed for safety purposes. He requested that the planning board only accept solid documentation when making their decision. Red flags and things to consider include the following:
  • 200 cars is a high maximum capacity
  • Document what is permitted for future businesses, not just the current proposal
  • An outside consultant should be brought in to review the plan

Applicant’s response to concerns, as presented by Bob Carey:

  1. Residual material from car crushing – Crushers have stringent requirements.  Packed gravel surfaces helps with this.
  2. Property values – This was addressed and discussed during the ZBA hearings and as such that discussion is past.  Reiterated that he is open to addressing the fencing/buffering issue.
  3. Green Yards – ZBA required best management practices as a condition of approval.  Green Yards is a step beyond this, usually for larger operations than the one being proposed. Pam commented that DES recommended it for educational purposes.
  4. Bend in the Driveway –  The decision was made to use the existing logging road in order to minimize environmental impact.  Creating an additional bend would cause more interference than needed.
  5. Best Practices of Junk Collecting & DES photos – Pointed out that Ms. Buchar’s photos pre-date the DES visit to Mr. Heselton’s property.  Mr. Heselton cleaned up the site, provided feedback photos of this to DES and while they have received nothing back from the DES by way of confirmation that the site is now in compliance, the DES does not engage as such on a local level; the town holds responsibility for monitoring the site.  DES conducts inspections on their own, independently, and Mr. Heselton agrees to keep the town in the loop with regards to this.
  6. Hours of Operation – Mr. Carey responded that Mr. Heselton wants to be a sensitive neighbor, and that 9-5 are reasonable hours of operation.  Crushing does create noise but it is reasonable during business hours.  He would also like to see Mr. Heselton be able to conduct business there quietly, on the weekends.
  7. Mercury/Refrigerants – A collection company will be paid to remove these.
  8. Freon – Requires a special license to remove.  A third party will come on site, drain the cars and leave with the freon.
  9. Other fluids – Mr. Heselton will remove oil, gasoline, antifreeze, brake/trans/power steering fluid, batteries, diesel.  After removal, batteries will be stored on a wooden pallet in the garage and someone will be called in to remove them.
  10. Number of cars in the junkyard – Must be accounted for and this is covered by the DMV, who deals with the record-keeping and log process.
  11. Electric/hybrid Cars – Will not be received at the junkyard.
  12. Wetlands – A wetlands specialist advised that there are no wetlands present.  The detention pond provides some treatment, followed by draining to the stone walls before it gets to the wetlands.  Grading will direct water to detention ponds as well.  If BMPs are followed, no oil should reach detention ponds.

Claire read Mark Goldberg’s email, dated 12/24/17 and discussion ensued about conditions that could be added, including number of cars, number of drums, storage of batteries.

Public Hearing closed at 9:28pm.

Deliberation of the Board Members

Carol Troy and Michael James suggested time to review the information and feedback received, and then discuss. Carol stated that she liked the idea of regular inspections, as it would provide a safety net.  Pam stated that BMPs (Best Management Practices) should become guidelines. Garrett Bauer commented that a lot of information had been received and that most questions had been answered with the exception of a few specific pieces of information.  He added that the number of cars on site at any given time would be needed and that he has some concerns about the hazardous materials.  He also questioned precisely what qualities of the soil on the site make it good for the proposed use, as per Sonny.  Claire agreed that she was uncertain as to how the hazardous materials could affect the environment, especially given a worst case impact scenario, and also that while there was a concern about the aesthetics, that certain measures (such as opaque fencing) could help to mitigate this.  Pam asked if the board is requiring an expert to come in and some discussion ensued, including estimated costs for such a measure.  Bob Carey stated that he did not think the DES would come in to provide expert advice/consultation.  Claire stated that we should be mindful of costs to obtain expertise but that in her opinion the board should move forward with this course of action, as the members have much information but not much basis for proper extrapolation of this info to apply the appropriate/necessary conditions.  Pam advised that she would like to see a draft of conditions to review.  Claire made a motion that the board defer its decision to a later date, and continue the public hearing at an agreed upon date.  Carol seconded the motion.  The board was unanimously in favor (5-0) and agreed to meet on February 6th to further deliberate, ideally with an expert on hand.  She questioned who the appropriate person might be to provide this expertise.  Pam will speak with the DES to get more information about this between now and the next meeting.

10:10 pm Opened Public Hearing regarding CIP (Capital Improvements Program)

Detailed discussion took place with respect to current 6 year plan, adherence to guidelines of the CIP and long-term benefits to stability of tax rate based on capital expenditures for each department.

Discussion ensued on economic benefits of avoiding bonds due to vast sums of money wasted on interest. Discussion of the possibility of selling some Town lands to return to the tax roles and how this money could be applied. Opened floor to public with no comments for or against the CIP document. Closed hearing at 11:13pm.

Motion was made by Garrett Bauer to approve CIP document (attached) with small correction to accompanying chart, seconded by Claire James. Motion carried , 5-0-1 (abstention was Sonny Harris).

Other Business

Due to the late hour, further business (Alestia Realty, LLC Antiques Shop property update,  101 East Main Street (Map 17, Lot 62); NFI North, Inc. property update, 2550 Route 103 (Map 3, Lots 35 and 75); Kathleen Griffin Autocraft property update,  2005 Route 114 (Map 3, Lot 1); Unless, LLC property site plan review, 11 West Main Street (Map 16 , Lot 105);

Cole Schlack property site plan review, 114 East Main Street (Map 17, Lot 6) and ITW Realty Trust, Communications Tower, Jones Road (Map 6, Lot 103-1))  will be conducted at the following PB meeting.

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 11:30 pm.

Minutes submitted by Karen Hambleton

CIP portion of PB minutes submitted by Sonny Harris

Next Meeting – February 6th @ 7:00pm.