Planning Board Minutes 02.27.18

March 6, 2018 Karen Hambleton Minutes, Planning Board 0

Planning Board Minutes 2.27.18

Town of Bradford

Meeting called to order by Pam Bruss at 7:02 P.M.

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

Alternates Present: Carol Meise

Alternates Absent: Steve Chase, Doug Troy, Michael James

Review & Consideration of Minutes – January 23, 2018 and February 6, 2018

Claire James made a motion to accept the minutes of 1.23.18. Garrett Bauer seconded the motion. Minutes were approved: 4 yes, 1 abstain.

Claire James made a motion to accept the minutes of 2.6.18.  Carol Troy seconded.  Minutes were approved 4 yes, 1 abstain, with the following edits:  1)  The concrete pad (for crushing) offered through NH DES is not ‘free’ but  is through a grant run program.  2) An addition to the notes:  Bob Close asked if the applicant would be willing to agree to limit the number of cars and the applicant replied “yes”.

Appointment and seating of Carol Meise, alternate

Carol Meise was formally voted to join the board.  Claire James made a motion to accept Carol Meise as an alternate.  Carol Troy seconded the motion.  Approval was unanimous: 5-0.

Carol was seated as an alternate in place of Sonny Harris, who recused himself.

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

  • Pam Bruss updated the board with new information regarding the AECOM engineering report.
    • This report was drafted by both a civil engineer and an environmental engineer. The report was read into record by Pam and Claire.  Pam advised that she had forwarded this report to everyone including Mr. Heselton, the applicant.  Upon receipt, the lawyer asked to have a meeting with Gary Garfield and others to review it.  Per Pam, the NHRPC (NH Regional Planning Commission) encouraged this and the meeting was held at the NHRPC offices on Wednesday,  2/21.  Attendees included: Attorney, Rob Carey, Laura Hartz, Jennifer McCourt, Pam Bruss, Gary Garfield, Carol Meise, and Matt Monahan and Katie (both from NHRPC).  Randy Twiss was not physically present but called in.  Per Pam, the meeting went well.  Items of general discussion at the meeting were reviewed with the board by Jennifer McCourt, for the following areas of the site plan:
  • General
  • Drawings/Figures
  • Calculations
  • Environmental Conditions
  • Conditions of Site Plan Approval
    • Pam asked the board for thoughts on conditions that should be applied. Pam compiled her own list and had also read a list of 10 concerns/items to consider, provided by DES.  Pam asked the board members how they would like to address these conditions.  It was decided that the conditions would be addressed and voted upon individually.
      • Motor Vehicle Maximum – Pam contacted the town lawyer, who advised he agreed with the 50 motor vehicle maximum, due to the fact that ZBA approved this plan based on a 50 motor vehicle max. Carol Troy commented that it might be tough to run a business with only 50 motor vehicles.  She recommended 50 to start, then following inspections adding to that number, for a potential increase to a 100 maximum.  Attorney Rob Carey stated that the 50 motor vehicle maximum for the first year was acceptable, as well as a 100 maximum following that time period.  Pam Bruss suggested approval from the ZBA for a 100 motor vehicle max, being that they originally approved only for 50.  Carey pointed out that the site should by law be referred to as either a junkyard or motor vehicle junkyard and that if the board is to be consistent with the law (RSA 36:112), the maximum number of vehicles cannot be specified/limited to cars v. trucks, etc., but must be referred to as “motor vehicles”.  Claire pointed out to the board members that another junkyard in town, owned by Mr. Chivers, was approved with a 50 vehicle maximum.  Sonny Harris commented that 1) The proposed operation cannot be compared to Mr. Chivers’ property in terms of environmental impact because his property borders a trout stream on the Warner River and 2) Imposing restrictions such as returning to the ZBA for a 100 motor vehicle approval is overburdening the ZBA. He further stated that successful inspections should be the determining factor for ability to increase to a 100 car maximum. Don Clark commented that it seemed to him that it would be the ZBA’s job to approve any changes in the term of the project maximum, and if that approval was set at a 50 vehicle max, it should stay at 50. Claire questioned whether the ZBA could/should legally approve such an increase or if this falls to the Planning Board.   Pam explained that the town lawyer advised that given this was a special exception approval, going through the ZBA for approval to expand the operation would be the appropriate process.  Claire made a motion to approve a 50 motor vehicle junkyard maximum for the first year of business operations, with the applicant to return to the ZBA for any increase in business should that be desired, to a 100 car maximum and based on at least 1 successful inspection prior.  Carol Meise seconded the motion.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • Annual inspection/Right of Entry to Inspection – Pam advised the board that NHDES could train Planning Board members to do this and would feel confident that they could do this post training. Carey advised that he thinks it should be the building inspector along with one Planning Board member, who should be responsible for conducting the inspections.  Laurie Buchar asked if the building inspector would be required to file a report following inspections.  Pam replied, “yes”.   Garret asked if the board had contacted the building inspector.  Pam responded that the board would work with the Select Board to involve the building inspector with this. Garret stated that he feels it should be building inspector and at least one Planning Board member to conduct inspections.  Garrett made a motion to approve the condition of right of entry – announced and unannounced – using the NHDES motor vehicle salvage yard environmental compliance manual and self audit,  compromised of the building inspector and a Planning Board member.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • Restrict Transfer of Ownership with Site Plan Approval – Mr. Carey stated he agrees that if the vehicles are limited, transferability should not be included as a condition. Don Clark commented that the continuing operation may be in the interest of the applicant but is not in the interest of the abutter.  He further commented that a lapse of operations of 2 or more years would necessarily constitute going back to the Planning Board to begin the approval process anew. Jim Bibbo commented that once a site plan is approved, it is approved and that if the applicant was to sell the business, the conditions of approval would remain intact.  Public deliberation of this items closed at 8:09 pm.  Garrett commented that given the land is 120+ acres, it might be difficult to sell if this condition applied.  Carol Troy agreed.  Garret made a motion to exclude this item from the list of conditions.  Carol Meise seconded. Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • No selling of cars at the road front, must have DMV license – Attorney Rob Carey stated that the RSAs require a license if more than 5 cars are sold during a 12 mth. period.  So the RSAs address this.  Pam said the only reason it was brought up is due to the fact that the applicant mentioned wanting to potentially sell cars.  Jim Bibbo commented that it wouldn’t be fair to limit this, as other people have cars out for sale around town. He further commented that if the board is going to do so, it should be done as an ordinance, not in the context of a site plan condition of approval.  Carol Troy commented that this is a business in a rural residential area and that visual impact should be limited.  Pam commented that if this is a car selling business, then it should be gone about the right way.  RSA 261:103-b was referenced by Mr. Carey.  Laurie Buchar asked if the purpose of the conditions list is to make conditions which will appear on the site plan.  Pam replied, “yes”.  Laurie then commented that even if certain items are redundant due to being listed in the RSAs, it is still not a bad idea to have such items listed as conditions.  Public comments closed at 8:19.  Claire made a motion to to add #4  (No selling of cars at the road front) as a condition.  Motion was seconded by Carol Meise.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • No scrap metal, without DES license and on file with the town – Mr. Carey stated that there are DES regulations concerning factors which render an operation a scrap metal operation. A  motor vehicle junkyard will include metal products – but exceeding the 30×30 foot limit rule would trigger the DES that an operation has become a scrap metal yard.  Don Clark asked for clarification regarding the difference between a junkyard and salvage yard, and commented that if this operation is intended to be a motor vehicle salvage yard, having some language about scrap metal is appropriate.  Carey commented that the board could also “condition <the site plan approval> to death” by expressly conditioning compliance with every law, which could get complicated.  Laurie Buchar expressed her support for the need for such conditions, stating that everything needs to be spelled out as much as possible for current and especially subsequent boards.  Laurie also asked if scrap metal is allowed outside the chain link fence.  Pam and Carol Troy replied “yes”. Public comments were closed at 8:30. A motion was made by Garrett to amend the first note on the site plan to read “Motor Vehicle Junkyard”, as opposed to “salvage yard”. Carol Troy made a motion to remove the scrap metal (#5) condition from list.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous). 
      • Must follow all BMPs and Green Yards Program – Pam stated that the ZBA voted that this proposal was already approved with BMPs (Best Management Practices). The Green Yards program was explained by Pam as follows:  The education piece of the program is not yearly.  The first phase (education) is active, while the second phase is currently inactive.  Carey commented that the BMPs will soon become law anyway and that the applicant will comply with this.  Since the program is in flux, he suggested keeping the BMPs as a condition but omitting Green Yards participation as a condition.  Don Clark commented that the application states that the applicant will follow BMPs.  Laurie Buchar asked for clarification that the ZBA approved with the BMPs condition.  It was confirmed that they did. Public comments closed at 8:45.  Carol Troy asked about Green Yards education. Pam explained that Green Yards would come out once to take a look around and they would also make recommendations.  If there is a violation, DES treats it as education and gives the owner an opportunity to correct the situation. Garrett made a motion that the applicant enroll in Phase I of the Green Yards program, as a condition of approval. Carol Meise seconded.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • All cars not at end of life must be in a specific spot (no mixing of end of life cars with resale vehicles) – This item was discussed and public comments were closed at 8:48. A motion was made by Carol Meise that all vehicles not at end of life will be in parking spots near the garage.  Motion seconded by Carol Troy.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • No more than 4 barrels of fluids – Claire suggested to add the words “hazardous materials” prior to “fluids”. Carey suggested using “Storage of fluids in accordance with BMPs” as the conditional verbiage.  Public comments closed at 8:51. Carol Meise suggested  “no more than one barrel each of BMP fluids.” Jim Bibbo commented that maybe it should be limited to 4 full barrels, instead of 4 barrels, as not all barrels will likely be full at any given time.  Carol Troy recommended to do the measurements by the gallon instead of the barrel.  Motion was made by Carol Meise to limit hazardous materials to no more than 275 gallons to be stored onsite.  Carol Troy seconded. Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • All batteries to be stored inside garage and no lithium batteries to be stored – Mr. Carey commented that this follows BMPs. Pam said she did not realize all batteries stored inside the garage was already part of the BMPS.  A motion was made by Carol Troy to prohibit  lithium batteries storage on site.  Garret seconded.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • No Stacking Vehicles and no accumulation outside of fence area – Motion was made by Claire to prohibit stacking vehicles, with no accumulation outside fence area. Garret seconded the motion. Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • Slats installed in fence – Mr. Carey commented that there will be brown colored slats in the gate facing County Road. The gate will be a 20 ft. wide gate, plus slats will also be added to an additional 8’ of fencing on both sides of the gate.  Don asked if the whole western side of the fence will be slatted.  Carol replied that probably it would be difficult to see past the buffer and the slats.  Pam said she is not enthused about the idea of plastic slats on the entire western side of the fence due to eventual deterioration of the plastics and potential subsequent contamination of surrounding soil and water.  Garrett made a motion to install plastic slats on the 20’ gate and 8 ft. of the fence on either side of it, and also to leave the 500’ vegetative buffer undisturbed for the life of the plan.  Carol Troy seconded. Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • Hours of operation M-F, 9-5pm for noise, such as crushers, large machinery, etc. Carey read the letter dated 2.5.18, regarding this.  A motion was made by Claire to keep these hours as is (M-F, 9-5pm). Motion was seconded by Garrett.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous)
      • SWPP filed with EPA – Jennifer McCourt stated that they do need to file a notice of SWPP with EPA.  Motion to exempt #13 (SWPP filed with EPA) was made by Garrett, due to the fact that it is already a requirement.  Motion seconded by Carol Troy.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • Tires are to be limited to 40 removed and stored on site – Carey read a letter to the Planning Board dated 2.5.18 regarding tires and storage. BMPs address avoiding piles of tires (possibility of mosquitos, etc.). Public comments closed at 9:37.  A motion was made by Claire to limit tires removed and stored/loose onsite to 40.  Carol Troy seconded the motion. Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).
      • Must crush over a concrete pad, designated for crushing – Carey stated that this is an acceptable condition, and that the current pad proposed works for Schnitzer (a car crushing company).  Mr. Carey stated that the applicant would want to work with DES and Geoinsight to install one of the concrete pads.  Pam also added that all fluids would be removed by the crushing company.  Public comments closed 9:40.  Garrett made a motion to include the condition of crushing over a concrete pad and removal of all hazardous waste via a crushing contractor.  Carol Meise seconded.  Vote: 5-0  (unanimous).
      • No more than 2 tractor trailers onsite for storage of fluids and tires: Carey pondered whether 2 trailers is too few.  He suggested proposing 5 containers, to promote neatness on site. Pam asked for clarification as to where the trailers would be stored.  Jennifer McCourt replied that it is not specified right now.  Jim Bibbo commented that shipping containers might be a better alternative than trailers.  Pam pointed out there are already several tractor trailers onsite.  This condition would be a way of limiting that number.  Garrett stated that since there was no proposal for storage, this is a way of addressing that.  Don Clark said that there should be a limitation with respect to this.  He also said they are quite tall and visible.  It would be helpful if they were in the back of the property instead of the front, and painted a less visible color.  He pointed out that the ones on Center Rd. are quite visible all year round.  Mr. Carey responded that he is ok with the 1 seabox already on the plan and would propose adding 3 more.  They would like room for 3 addt’l shipping containers/tractor trailers.  Existing now: 2 on the farm, 1 at the house.  Don Clark commented that this is too many.  Laurie Buchar suggested painting and placing them in back of property and reminded the board that they need to consider the abutters as much as the applicant.  Carol Troy suggested painting the trailers facing the road.  Mr. Heselton agreed he would be amenable to this.  Public comments closed at 9:56.  Carol Troy stated that there is 1 shipping sea container, and 1 for tires and that she doesn’t see a need for more.  Garrett agreed. Pam opened floor again at 10:04.  Sonny wanted clarification as to where they were going.  He further stated that the environment is more important than the visual impact and that he would rather have stuff stored in trailers than out in the open.  Laurie Buchar pointed out that the more storage one has, the more one is going to collect.  A motion was made by Garret to include no more than 2 additional tractor trailers on the site plan, on the far (East) side of the property, painted on the roadside.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).  Original Motion was amended by Garrett to add a condition to limit tractor trailers onsite to no more than three, to be painted to blend in on the roadside portion.  Claire seconded the motion.  Vote:  5-0 (unanimous).
      • #17 – All erosion or other runoff issues will be repaired or restored to pre-existing condition.
      • # 18 – Bonding of the Project
      • #19 – Restoration Plan in place for when the operation comes to an end.

Regarding condition #s 17, 18 and 19 – Jennifer McCourt stated that bonding is not typical for this sort of project.  It is above and beyond.  In Pam’s opinion it would be difficult to bond.  Soil contamination can be very costly.  Carol Meise stated that it’s not a good idea to leave this unanswered because the town is then responsible, so there has to be something the board can do.  Claire commented that bonding is a requirement for gravel pits.  Mr. Carey responded that there are 3 different issues: #17 is a BMP already.  He stated additionally that bonding of the project is illegal for this type of operation, and that the reason it can be done for gravel pits is because the town has a regulation established to address this.  But a motor vehicle junkyard cannot be treated as a gravel pit.  Bonding is a requirement in the site plan regs but it is limited to construction (at the front end).  However at the back end of a project, such as the operation proposed, it would be unlawful.  Therefore, he objected to this.  Regarding #19, it’s not something that’s provided for in the regulations and is up to the property owner.  The Select Board has a responsibility to put liens on the property owners if site is not being kept up.  Jennifer McCourt stated that one way of thinking about it is for the board to ask if they would be looking at procuring a restoration plan for a shopping center. Public comments closed at 10:17.  Garrett asked how the town would avoid a potential contamination issue if there was no restoration plan required. Carol Meise stated that the owner is still legally responsible for upkeep of the terms, and that inspections will help to drive this.  Mr. Carey affirmed that this has been a collaborative process and that there are already many layers of oversight built into the conditions imposed, so he thinks this addresses all the issues sufficiently.  Laurie Buchar reiterated that she was concerned about oversight with future boards.  Pam replied that the board has not ironed out the process of inspections yet but that they will work this out with the Select Board.  A motion was made by Garrett to exclude #17 from the list of conditions.  Carol Troy seconded the motion.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).  Regarding bonding of the project, Pam said it was a suggestion of the engineer but it might be a slippery slope to go down and too much to ask.  Carol Meise added that it was illegal.  Garrett said we can continue to look at it in this via future ordinances.  Carol Troy made a motion to exclude #18 from the list of conditions. Garrett seconded the motion.  Vote: 5-0. (unanimous). Regarding #19, Pam suggested the statement “If business ceases operation, all clean-up will be done within 6 months of business closure.”  A motion was made to omit #19 by Garrett.  Seconded by Carol Meise.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).

Pam added that the last item to discuss is the current clean-up of site. She suggested that maybe the board should not add this to the conditions.  Garrett stated he thought it would be an overreach to include it as a condition but something to ask for in good faith.  Pam suggested that the Planning Board submit a letter to the Select Board about this.  Carey commented that a lot was done already to clean up the site and that Mr. Heselton is committed to doing this the right way and is a good neighbor.  Don Clark said he was disappointed to hear that this cannot be made a condition, as the whole premise of the project was that it would not have negative consequences for the neighborhood.  If the board cannot apply this as a condition, he hopes the board will write a letter to the Select Board.  Jim Bibbo stated that Mr. Heselton inherited a lot of the mess and doesn’t think this should be a condition.  Laurie Buchar commented that the town has rules regarding unregistered vehicles on property and it would be nice to see it cleaned up.  Sonny commented he was on the site when DES did the site walk and estimated that 99% of what was there has been cleaned up.  Pam suggested sending a letter to Select Board regarding properties in town which need to be cleaned up in general. Carol Meise made a motion to come back to this point later and not include the current clean-up of the property as a condition of the site plan approval.  Seconded by Garrett Bauer.  Vote: 4 yes – 1 no (Claire voted no)

  • Garrett made a motion to approve application for the site plan dated 10.23.17 with the proposed conditions established on the meeting dated 2.27.18.  Carol Troy seconded.  Vote: 5-0 (unanimous).

Notice of Decision – Pam proposed to compile the conditions to be added to the site plan and then a notice of decision to be signed once conditions have been sent to applicant and added to site plan.  Claire will help with the compilation.

Public hearing closed at 10:50 pm.  Sonny Harris was then re-seated on the board.

Antiques Shop update (Map 17, Lot 61) – Claire sent owner Jim Gamble an email establishing a deadline of the end of March 2018 to clean up the front porch of the business.  If the porch is not cleaned up by this date, the matter will then be forwarded to the Select Board.

NFI Update – Carol Troy spoke with Jan Williamson, who advised that she had received an email from the (former) Planning Board Secretary indicating that NFI did not need to come in for a site plan review.  Carol informed her that there have been some changes and asked Jan if she could come in on 3/27/18 for an informal session to speak with the board about changes to NFI.  The last time NFI had a change they had a public hearing, per Carol (when they went from day students to boarding).  Carol said she was unsure if the Planning Board should do a public hearing for this as well.  Jim Bibbo commented that NFI never came back to the board for a review when they switched to a co-ed model, so the board needs to keep track of their changes.

Bradford Inn Site Plan Review – to be deferred to a later date.

114 East Main St. (old Bruss construction office Map 17, lot 6) – Claire advised that she was in touch with new owner of the building, Cole Schlack, about needing to come in for a site plan review.  Pam asked about the date that Bruss moved out of the building.  If it was 2 or more years ago, the site plan needs to be reviewed anyway.  Cole will advise regarding the date he will be able to appear before the board to address this.

Meeting adjourned at 11:09 pm.

Minutes submitted by Claire James