TOWN OF BRADFORD
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 12, 2010
7:00PM
Call to Order and Roll Call:
Marcia Keller, Chair called the October 12, 2010 meeting to order with Phil LaMoreaux, Harry Wright, Selectmen Representative, Bill Glennie, Barry Wheeler, Jim Bibbo Alternate, John Greenwood, Alternate and Marge Cilley, Secretary present. Absent were: Barbara Vannata and Sonny Harris.
Marcia Keller, Chair seated Jim Bibbo for Sonny Harris and John Greenwood for Barbara Vannata.
Review and Consideration of the September 14, 2010 minutes:
Motion was made by Jim Bibbo to approve the minutes, seconded by Phil LaMoreaux.
Marcia Keller, Chair advised there was an omission in the minutes, and the following amendment should be added. Marcia Keller stated that she recognized the fact that Pathways Consulting did not do a full survey on the Site, but and that is the item on the check list from there, would there be a problem stamping the plan? Ed Hauck stated that they do not have a problem stamping the plan but we for financial reasons did not want to go beyond the drip line. Marcia explained they did not ask them to, but if they would stamp the work that they did it would be more professional that way.
Mr. Ed Hauck advised Pathways is also an Engineering Firm, and he also stated they did have that conversation. Mr. Hauck did present the plan to the board at this time.
Motion to approve the amendments made by Phil LaMoreaux, seconded by Jim Bibbo. Motion carried 7-0
Motion on the original approval of the minutes as amended carried 7-0.
To Do Folder:
Notice of Decision from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for Harry Wright Garage on Oakdale Road, Map 19, Lot 28. Needs to state it is a Variance.
The Agenda for the 69th Annual Conference for LGC was mentioned.
Superior Court Filing for the previously owned Sanborn property was mentioned.
Copies of the letters to the Selectmen regarding signs for: Appleseed, Hirsch property, O. E. Trucking. Marcia Keller, Chair noted that the Appleseed sign has been taken down.
Public Hearing on proposed Workforce Housing:
Copies of the proposal were available for the public’s convenience. Marcia Keller, Chair advised the purpose of this Ordinance is initially in response to a Supreme Court decision followed by an amendment to the State Statute, by the Legislature, providing that a municipality may not unduly restrict an application for an affordable or workforce housing. This planning board proposed this Ordinance last year for vote at the last town meeting which was not approved. It is being proposed again, because if Bradford has not put regulations in place, and if the state law prevails, and an applicant comes in and presents the board with an application for workforce housing, we must accept it, review it in accordance with the State Statutes and what this Ordinance does is give us the guide line and structure in which we can review the application. There is no change from last year’s Ordinance, there will be an explanation of it this year on the ballot to make it more understandable per Phil LaMoreaux. Phil also explained that this will allow some local control on where it would be allowed for someone to bring in an application. Without approving this Ordinance, workforce housing could be allowed anywhere.
Marcia Keller, Chair opened discussion from the floor.
Laura Hallahan questioned what would be the best way to present this to the public. Marcia related to Warner’s putting the explanation on the ballot last year. On the ballot, the language would ask: Are you in favor of adopting this amendment proposed in response to RSA 674:58-III 61 which mandates workforce housing compliance for all communities. The reasoning would be on the ballot this year which was not done last year. If this amendment is not passed, the State Law is still in effect and the Planning Board will not have local guidance for the implementation. This amendment responds to a new State Law mandate to provide reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of Workforce Housing in the majority of the land areas zoned to permit residential uses of more than 50% in the town. The proposal ordinance provides that the Planning Board may approve one or more incentives including density bonus reduction to lot size, road frontage, decreases, reductions, set backs, and open space reduction and waiver of application fees only if the applicant demonstrates that the town’s land use ordinances and regulations induce a cost prohibitive workforce housing project, and further include the assurance of affordability.
Marcia Keller Chair advised that what the court decisions said was that if we are presented with an application for Workforce Housing, and we arbitrarily turn it down, the applicant can build whatever he’s proposed without any input from the town.
An article will be put in the Bridge and a question was raised if it would be brought up at the Town Forum on November 6, 2010. The Ordinance can also be posted on the Web Site.
The Planning Board will discuss this further at the October 26, 2010 meeting, after Harry Wright, Selectmen Representative and Bill Glennie have attended a meeting, on Thursday evening regarding a wrap up on Legislative changes, one of which is an amendment to Workforce Housing Statute.
Marcia Keller, Chair closed the Public Hearing.
Public Hearing Continuation on Corsair Realty, Gravel Pit, Pleasant Valley Road, Map 7, Lot 29:
Harriet Hobbs and Ed Hauck came before the Planning Board for continuation of the Public Hearing
Marcia Keller, Chair advised that as a result of the Site Walk two weeks ago, the Planning Board voted to engage an outside Engineering Review of the plan, with the focus on the culvert and driveway particularly. Marcia Keller, Chair acknowledged a letter of review that was received from Brian Vincent, P. E., Senior Project Manager, Nobis Engineering, Inc. regarding the Pleasant Valley Road Gravel Pit.
Mr. Hauck advised he did receive a telephone message from Marcia Keller, Chair regarding a copy of the Nobis Engineering letter, but did not have time to pick it up prior to this evening. Copies were provided to the Planning Board members.
The following is the disposition of the Waiver requests from the applicant from the sections as noted.
4.e. Has the seal and signature of a registered engineer or land surveyor.
The plan presented tonight does have the engineer’s stamp on it, of the topographic area of the portion of the land that is going to be the actual pit. Mr. Hauck advised this is a withdrawal now.
4.f. Previously done. Now withdrawn
4.l. Includes a log of borings or test pits to include groundwater levels.
The reason for requesting the waiver is determining the elevation of the highest annual average ground water table would require a topographic survey, which has been done. The digging of test pits and hiring a Certified Soil Scientist to log the test pit data which represents the applicant with an unnecessary financial hardship.
During a site inspection on July 8, 2010 there was no water or evidence of standing water in the lowest portion of the gravel pit which is estimated at an elevation of 695 feet based on the datum provided on the attached aerial photo. Due to the amount of material to be excavated, the applicant has no desire to excavate to a greater depth than currently exists, eliminating any possibility of excavation into the seasonal high water table.
Marcia Keller, Chair advised the report from the engineer reports that the applicant states that the Estimated Seasonal High Water Table (ESHWT) measurements which were taken on July 8, 2010 by Sandpiper Environmental Services, however, no measurements appear to have been included in the application. The applicant also states in exemption requests 4.1 and 4.x that obtained this information would create an unnecessary financial hardship as there is no intention to excavate beyond the lowest current elevation of the gravel pit. Section X.7 of the Town of Bradford Excavation & Reclamation Regulations indicates that finished grade elevations shall maintain a minimum of two foot separation above seasonal high water table, except for when a pond is created or an exception is granted by the regulator. Based on the proposed Site Plan, there are significant cuts proposed along the side slopes of the pit, particularly in the eastern corner of the site. While it is reasonable to assume that this cut will not reach the groundwater table based on information provided in the application, Nobis recommends that test pits be conducted and observed by qualified professional to confirm the elevation of ESHWT and to ensure that all work will not extend to within two vertical feet of ESHWT.
Ed Hauck suggested they could arrow the darkened line as the limits of potentially disturbed area on the plan map and so note on the plans to satisfy that requirement.
Motion was made by Phil LaMoreaux to grant the exemption requested for requirement 4.l. Seconded by John Greenwood. Motion carried 7-0.
4.m. Shows stone walls, ledge outcroppings, wells, existing buildings, septic systems utilities and the like.
The information gained from showing the above items would not yield any critical information to this application particularly since the gravel pit already exists. In addition, showing these items on a plan would require field location by a licensed land surveyor which presents the applicant with a financial hardship. However, the aerial photo enclosed within this application does show the existing buildings of nearby abutters. Please note that there are no wells, existing septic systems, utilities and existing buildings on the property.
Motion was made by Phil LaMoreaux to grant exception for the item 4.m. Seconded by Bill Glennie. Motion carried 7-0.
4.t Identifies storage areas for topsoil to be used in reclamation.
Currently, there is no topsoil being stored on site. The applicant intends to remove gravel from the existing gravel pit and there is no expansion planned at this time.
Expansion of the gravel pit would include the removal and stockpiling of topsoil on the site. It is anticipated that topsoil for any reclamation process will need to be imported from elsewhere. Nobis Engineering Inc. comments: The Applicant states there is no topsoil currently being stored on-site.
Section XIII of the Town of Bradford Earth Excavation & Reclamation Regulations indicates the Applicant shall provide the Town with a Performance Bond to guarantee reclamation of the gravel pit area, compliance with the permit, and an inspection. If approved by the Town, Nobis recommends the Town require a Performance Bond for the gravel excavation, including the cost of importing and placing topsoil.
Motion was made by Bill Glennie to accept the waiver request on 4.t, seconded by Phil LaMoreaux. Motion carried 7-0.
4.v. All surface drainage patterns including wetlands, and standing water, lakes, streams Etc. on site and within 200′ of the perimeter of the area to be excavated. Wetlands with a certified wetland Scientist Stamp.
There are no wetlands located within the existing excavated area or within 50 feet of the existing excavated area on the subject property. Delineation of wetlands or other jurisdictional areas off the subject property are unnecessary and would not yield any critical information to this application particularly since the gravel pit already exists.
Motion was made by Phil LaMoreaux to deny this waiver request, as they have all observed wetlands and surface waters within 200 feet, of the proposed excavation, and not of the entire site and would like them to be shown on the plan, and stamped by a Wetlands Scientist. Bill Glennie seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
Nobis recommends that the Site Plan state the outcome of the wetlands scientist review, and show the extent of any wetlands discovered on site, if any. Nobis recommends that the site plan be stamped by the wetland scientist and project professional engineer.
Mel Pfeifle asked for clarification if that includes wetlands across the street so there would be protection on runoff there. The plan might have to be reduced a bit to show where the 200 feet would be.
Ed Hauck stated it was denied with the qualifications of area to be excavated, showing anything within 200 feet of the area to be excavated on and off site.
4.w Delineates soils and any areas greater than 50% slope.
Delineation and mapping any areas with a slope greater than 50% slope is unnecessary particularly since the gravel pit already exists. Slopes greater than 50% would need to include cliffs or ledges of bedrock, none of which exist on the subject property.
Motion was made by Phil LaMoreaux to grant exception on 4.w based on the conditions of the Site Walk, and on the topography on the plan that we now have, it is clear there are areas greater than 50% slope that won’t be addressed within the reclamation. Bill Glennie seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
4.x Identifies aquifer locations and limits as identified by the US Geological Survey and any zoning districts.
Due to the amount of material that remains within the gravel pit and the anticipated amount of material to be excavated, the applicant has no desire to excavate to a greater depth than currently exists, eliminating any possibility of excavation into the seasonal high water table and therefore eliminating any impacts to existing acquifers.
Marcia Keller, Chair advised Nobis addressed this in the Estimated Seasonal High Water Table comments, under 4.l.
Motion was made by Phil LaMoreaux to grant this waiver request as the proposed final grades are significantly above the road elevation which is immediately adjacent to the site, along the same bank. As long as the applicant is willing to state that as long as any further excavation be addressed with the new application this will be sufficient.
Motion seconded by Bill Glennie. Motion carried 7-0.
4.z Blasting provisions and procedures.
There is no blasting of material anticipated in the future operation of the gravel pit, and should be stated on the plan. Marcia Keller, Chair advised that the Regulations do say that if there is to be any blasting, it has to be listed in the original application or it would have to be the result of a Public Hearing.
Withdrawn.
4.bb. Location of 3 groundwater wells.
There are no groundwater wells located on the subject property.
Motion was made by Phil LaMoreaux to grant this exemption. Seconded by Harry Wright. Motion carried 7-0.
6.d Has the seal and signature of a registered engineer or land surveyor.
Withdrawn
6.f. Includes the proposed final topography of the reclaimed area.
Final topography is unknown because existing topography within the gravel pit has not been mapped or determined. The reclamation plan does provide for the grading of steep slopes as to prevent erosion.
Withdrawn
6.g Shows proposed final surface drainage patterns.
Final surface drainage pattern is unknown as final topography within the gravel pit is unknown at this time.
Withdrawn
6.i Identifies the subsequent reuse of the site if known or anticipated.
The subsequent reuse of the site is unknown at this time.
Motion was made by Phil LaMoreaux to grant the waiver request for 6.i.
Seconded by Bill Glennie. Motion carried 7-0.
Marcia Keller, Chair suggested they look at the recommendations from the Engineers report including “The Applicant states that operations on-site will be irregular. Section XVI. Of the Town of Bradford Earth Excavation & Reclamation Regulations indicates that if the operation becomes inactive for a period of one year, the permit is automatically withdrawn. If approved by the Town, Nobis recommends that the permit include language addressing renewal requirements to prevent the permit from being withdrawn or lapsing due to inactivity on site.
Mr. Hauck stated their intent is to clean it up.
Phil LaMoreaux questioned Mr. Hauck if they would add a comment about incremental reclamation so that as they hit final grades would they be willing to seed that area. Mr. Hauck advised they will add that to the plan.
Marcia Keller, Chair read from the Nobis report: Based on review of the Application and Site Plan, the proposed disturbance appears to be below the 100,000 sq. ft. threshold for NHDES Alteration of Terrain permit. It should be noted that the Site plan shows a disturbed area of approximately 60,000 sq. ft., but the Application indicates that the disturbed area will not exceed 95,000 sq. ft. Nobis recommends that the actual proposed limit of work be shown consistently on the Site Plan, Reclamation Plan, and Excavation Plan. In the event that the Town approves the application, Nobis has the following recommendations: Phil LaMoreaux advised the following be added to the plans: “The plans be modified to include a statement that no NHDES AOT and Wetlands permits are required for the work as determined by a licensed engineer.”
Marcia Keller, Chair read the following into the minutes: “Based on communications with the board, it is believed that a recently constructed culvert located at the southwest corner of the site has created a stormwater problem for a downstream abutter. Nobis recommends the following two options to address this potential issue:
1. The Applicant be required to provide a stormwater calculations prepared by a qualified professional that show that there is no adverse impact to the abutting property, or:
2. Provide Site/Grading Plan and supporting stormwater calculations, prepared by a qualified professional that shows the stormwater being redirect and controlled on site. Said plans and calculations should ensure that there will be no new adverse impacts to site operations and/or downgradient properties or public ways.
Mr. Ed. Hauck advised they came with a submission application of cleaning up and using the gravel off site on personal property and making better for the property and abutters, looking at a nicer property. The culvert is clearly outside the limits that we have already delineated and looked at based on what Nikki Dubaere has brought to our attention what is happening to their property. We are trying to combine: a. An excavation permit and b. A culvert stormwater run off situation. We have to stay clear and focused on the excavation permit and if you want to talk about the culvert as a separate entity that in itself is its own subject. Mr. Hauck also advised that he has stated this previously, and will continue to repeat it at every meeting, when they go in there and start cleaning it up, he will do everything to make sure the water does not run on these folks property at all.
Based on the topography of the current land and with changing directions of the culvert, putting in a couple of cross swales and making sure it is seeded correctly is not a big deal for them to do. But to get an engineer review, more survey is a separate topic.
Marcia Keller, Chair advised the culvert in discussion was not put there by a previous owner, according to the previous owner’s word, has changed the situation on the pit even though it is beyond the scope of the area. It is not an unrelated issue. Much conversation ensued between board members and abutters. A question was asked if somehow they could divert the water without changing the culvert? Mr. Hauck advised absolutely yes, however, they would be disturbing growth area that has already started. The situation at hand is, if you disturb the culvert, by changing it, you create an unconsolidated soil zone to where you do have moot potential for a rain storm to now allow that new area to be washed out, that was already well vegetated from last summer or whenever the culvert was put in. Mr. Hauck also advised that his concern is that if the culvert is disturbed in an unreasonable manner we may be creating more problems on both sides.
Harriet Hobbs suggested we are hearing he said/she said at this time and she had been in touch with David Pickman who advised that property has flooded for twenty years. This property is being identified as a culprit and may have nothing to do with it. And, what Eddie is saying, is beyond the pervue of this particular application, a separate matter, it is above the gravel pit. To be assigned blame for this is, I think incorrect. That is not to say we do not want to correct the situation, but I feel this is outside the realm of this application. Ed Hauck advised he has spoken with the Vice President of the Lake Sunapee Snowmobile club, and they do do things to properties if they get permission from somebody to put culverts, bridges etc. in, whatever they do to make great trails for snowmobiling.
Nikki Dubaere, abutter suggested the situation does need to be addressed and is not saying it is all the culvert, if it is ignored now, and is taken care of later, will that change everything on the plan?
Marcia Keller, Chair read from the Nobis report: The proposed driveway is shown as having a maximum of 20 percent slope; although the Town’s driveway standard does not appear to specify a maximum or minimum slope, it is Nobis’ recommendation that the applicant propose a more reasonable driveway slope that will be stable with existing native gravel soils, or propose a surface material that will not be susceptible to erosion with the existing 20 percent slope. In addition, safety considerations should be taken into account. Specific erosion and sediment control practices for the proposed driveway and swale should be specified. It was noted that Erosion Control Details are included on the Site Plan , however the location of stone check dams, stone lined ditch, and tracking control pad should also be shown in plan view.
Ed Hauck advised they have addressed the problem with a stamped Engineer’s signature for drainage on that driveway. They are having an unconsolidated entrance, low down, between one and two feet deep of course 3 inch rip rap stone which will clean out water. Consensus of the planning board is major concern for run-off from the driveway.
Marcia Keller, Chair read the next item from the Nobis report: If approved, this operation will require an EPA Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); it should be at the Board’s discretion to review this plan prior to start of operations. Marcia stated this could be a Condition of Approval.
Next item of concern from the Nobis report: The soil survey of Sullivan County needs to be changed to read Merrimack
Marcia Keller, Chair read from Nobis report: Nobis recommends that the Site Plan state the outcome of the wetlands scientist review, and show the extent of any wetlands discovered on site, if any. Nobis recommends that the site plan be stamped by the wetland scientist and project professional engineer. This has been dealt with.
Also read by Marcia Keller, from Nobis report: In the letter to the Board, it is noted that “Fuels, lubricants or other toxic or polluting chemicals will not be stored on-site” Note 3 on the Site Plan states “In the event that fuel is stored within the project area, all local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to such facilities shall be complied with”. Nobis recommends the Town request a clarification from the Applicant, to be consistent, and that the Site Plan notes be updated to reflect the clarification. If approved by the Town, Nobis recommends a condition of approval stating that any fueling or maintenance of excavation and earthmoving equipment be conducted in accordance with the NHDES Fact Sheet WD-DWGB-22-6 “Best Management Practices for Fueling and Maintenance of Excavation and Earthmoving Equipment”.
Mr. Hauck advised there will be no chemicals on site, but was asked by the board to put a note on the plan so stating and he agreed.
Nobis recommends the following information be included on the Site Plan:
1. Hours of operation (Mon – Fri. 8:00am – 5:00pm as noted in the Application)
2. Maximum number of trips per day to and from the facility:
3. Provisions for dust control:
4. Provisions for disposal of stumps.
Nikki Dubaere, abutter requested that it show on the plans that trucks will go east on Pleasant Valley Road to Route 114.
There will be no stumps, and the number of trips per day is unspecified.
Marcia Keller, Chair advised the next two Nobis comments have already been dealt with, Acquifer and the issue with topsoil.
Comments continue regarding the culvert located in the southwest corner of the site, and the abutters adamantly state that they do not want water runoff that has occurred in the past to continue.
Phil LaMoreaux read the #5 comments from Nobis report again: Nobis recommends the following two options to address this potential issue:
A. The Applicant be required to provide stormwater calculations prepared by a qualified professional that show that there is no adverse impact to the abutting property, or:
B. Provide Site/Grading Plan and supporting stormwater calculations, prepared by a qualified professional that shows the stormwater being redirect and controlled onsite. Said plans and calculations should ensure that there will be no new adverse impacts to site operations and/or downgradient properties or public ways.
Phil LaMoreaux suggested they put it in the hands of the Applicant and recommend they pick one of the above suggestions by Nobis.
Ed Hauck advised these do not happen overnight with a lot of incurred cost, which they do not want to do because of the cost involved. We are trying to help and remedy the situation while doing the driveway. The concern is that they would be touching a well vegetated area and they would be opening Pandora’s Box.
Mr. Dubaere advised excess gravel has filled in their ditch and they have had to clean it out twice in two years now, and they never have had to before.
Harriet Hobbs advised they will fix the problem somehow/sometime.
Marcia Keller, Chair advised the Planning Board does not have the authorization to fix the culvert problem. Phil LaMoreaux advised there is a need to have an Engineer’s advice, and stamped. Barry Wheeler interjected that it is not a big deal to fix the problem at all, and it is too bad it has had to come to this.
Mr. Hauck advised he will bring their Engineer up there, do an as built of what is currently there, then they will give them a correction of what is currently there and put a stamp on it. If it continues to have further problems against these folks, where does that leave you guys? Phil LaMoreaux advised that however they want to do it is fine, but it would contribute to the outside flow and be relevant to the drainage of the site.
Marcia Keller, Chair advised they will need their Engineer to go up and look at that particular issue, and stamp a plan showing what they are going to do, by using either suggestion A or B and deal with it.
Marcia Keller, Chair summarized where we are:
Waiver requests were either approved or withdrawn with the exception of :
1. 4.b- The Surface Drainage patterns including wetlands, standing water, lakes, streams etc., which was denied and needs to be dealt with.
2. Several things need to be shown on the plan.
Reclamation, Changing name to Merrimack County, Hours of operation on the plan, Direction of Traffic, Engineer looking at stormwater problem.
Under #5, The recommendation is the Applicant has indicated they would rather do the second option which is to provide safe grading plans to provide a solution. The Applicant is not providing stormwater calculations as recommended by Nobis, but is assuring there will be no new adverse impact.
Reclamation Bond question proposed to the Applicant, and they will take care of this.
In reply to a question by Marcia Keller, Chair, Nikki DuBaere asked if any vegetative buffer will be cut when approaching the driveway? Mr. Hauck advised no.
This Public Hearing will be continued on November 9, 2010.
Marcia Keller advised she did look through the Town & City for the Legislative changes which is where the restrictive covenants are. Three other issues were: Planning Board Application cannot be delayed pending other approvals from other Government bodies.
Alternates may also participate as non-voting members. Rules and procedures were obtained an electronic copy from Andrew Pinard. The Rules and Procedures must be adopted to include when and how alternates may participate at meetings. Marcia advised she will put the changes that they have approved and forward to everyone and hold a Public Hearing on it on the 26th of October. Phil LaMoreaux proposed changing the rules of procedure to allow the Alternates can contribute as voting members, except for making a motion or second or actual voting.
The final change that pertained to the Planning Board, some towns have a provision in either their zoning or sub-division in pre-existing, substandard lot if under one ownership must be merged involuntarily. This does not pertain to Bradford however. The Legislature Law states it may not be done without the consent of the owner.
CIP – Presented the progress of the CIP:
Bill Glennie gave a slide show presentation of the progress of the CIP with graphs. Bill explained how the information was procured with the results shown. Discussion concerning the committee’s roll at CIP meeting regarding the taking of information and who sets priority. It was suggested by Marcia Keller, Chair that the committee should make a leveling from year to year, level the budget, share the cost and prioritize it.
Motion was made by Jim Bibbo, seconded by Bill Glennie to Adjourn at 10:10pm. Motion carried 7-0.
Respectfully submitted
Marjorie R. Cilley
Secretary