TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
December 2,
2008
Approved December 16, 2008
DRB Members
Present: Amy Escott, Lisa Godfrey,
Richard (Dick) Jordan, Tom McGlenn,
DRB Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt, George Munson.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator),
Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Dorothy Waller, Gary French, John
Chandler, Chris Burnett, Tim Burnett, Gerry Guillemette, Joe and Ann Iadanza,
Andrea Haulenbeek, Jaime Ciffo, Joe Fallon.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of the November 18, 2008 meeting:
Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6–0, with Amy Escott not voting.
Burnett Scrap Metals, LLC – Conditional Use Permit – Route 116 – Applicants: James and Mark Burnett. (DRB members: Dick, Greg, Lisa, Tom, Zoëm, Dennis)
** continued from the
November 18th meeting
Observations from the November 22nd site visit were recorded. In attendance were Dick, Greg, Ted (DRB members), Peter (staff), Tim and Chris Burnett, Joe Fallon (applicants), John King and Frank Babbott (neighbors). Dick Jordan read from his notes; notes were distributed in writing and are also attached. No other comments were recorded.
Joe Fallon said the Burnetts would like to amend the opening
hours requested in their application to 6:30am (M-F) and 7:30am (Sat). He said only equipment and vehicles would be
started (warmed) up during the first half-hour of operations; this was to ready
them to depart, or to receive scrap deliveries, by 7:00am (M-F) or 8:00am (Sat). Greg asked about trucks bound for
Increasing the height of the fence around a certain low-lying area was discussed. Dick thought replacing an 8-ft. tall section with a new 10 ft. tall continuous sheet would be nicer looking, rather than patching in an additional 2-ft. piece. The low-lying area and surrounding tree plantings were discussed. Peter said lower branches would need to be pruned if the fence were raised two feet. The condition of the trees was discussed. Joe Iadanza said they were planted 4-5 years ago, with some variance in their height and condition.
Joe Fallon said state officials had made an unannounced routine visit to the site since the 11-18 meeting. He said he would forward a copy of their reports covering issues of stormwater, hazardous waste and solid waste when he received it. He said the Burnett operation received good marks in all areas. Joe Iadanza, a neighbor, said as a well user in the vicinity, he felt better after hearing about the visit. Peter Erb said Matt Probasco, the stormwater official who had visited the site, said while the process was not complete, his report would be favorable as the operation was doing a good job satisfying their multi-sector permit for stormwater. Alex said such visits are typically unannounced and while most reports from similar scrap operations contain critical comments, these would not.
Jim Burnett discussed warming up the machines. Zoë asked how often time was lost after 7am because the machines weren’t ready to go, whether it was a detriment to the business because delivery trucks backed up waiting for the grappler machine to warm up. Jim said trucks did back up if machines weren’t ready. Gerry Guillemots offered that all heavy equipment has to warm up and that drivers prefer to start early in their day to avoid traffic.
The fence sections were discussed. Joe Fallon suggested raising the 8-ft. section and adding the 2-ft. piece to the bottom. Joe Iadanza said he likes the overhanging pine trees. He thinks it would preclude putting additional height on the fence. He suggested concentrating on another area (where fence height could be adjusted) and leaving any trees alone to avoid damaging them.
Zoë asked about snowplowing; Joe Fallon said performance standards allow any kind of property maintenance at any time and they will assume they can snowplow at any time.
Tom asked whether the amount of business depends on the price of metal; Tim said yes. Peter asked the board to establish a kind of baseline statement he can work from going forward. He asked if the new structures were being built to expand the business either by increasing the volume or tonnage done before. He also said he did not know if the machinery noise heard at the site visit represented a typical level of noise. Jim said only one machine had been operated on the site visit.
Joe Fallon said the new building would not lead to an increase in operations. He said the small structure would contain an office, the scales and storage space; the new building was meant to replace multiple structures being removed. Peter asked about the back of the new structure, whether it was for skid loading. Jim said it would be forklift loading, not dropping of materials.
Greg noted – working
through any decision may require the hearing to remain open, suggested
continuing the hearing but at the same time directing staff. There may be areas that need
clarification. Tom MOVED to continue the
public hearing to December 16th, and also to direct staff to draft
conditions of approval. Peter said he
would circulate the draft to all interested parties. Dick SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Greg and Zoe recused
themselves from, and Amy joined, the board at this time (8:00pm).
Final Plat Approval –
Development on an Existing
Alex explained regulations allowed for the creation of a lot
- for agriculture, forestry or conservation purposes - without going through
the subdivision process, understanding the lot can have no future development. The zoning administrator issues a zoning
permit to create the lot. Tom asked if
there are any other requirements in creating the lot. Peter said one could not create an illegal
situation such as those regarding setbacks, ROW’s, etc.He said that information is checked but no other development
issues are reviewed. Greg Waples (speaking
from the audience) asked the applicant Gary French if he understood the future
implications of the request, that a buyer may be bound to the decision
regarding no future development.
Peter discussed an issue with documents prepared by George
Bedard. He said he had asked George to
remove the words “site plan” from a map that had been submitted with the
application.
Tree removal (order #2) was discussed.
Zoë, speaking from the audience, asked about a section referring to a tree line that she did not see on the plan. She also noted a high bank and asked that the land be more accurately described. Tom asked about the Lewis Creek Association buffer zone. Lisa confirmed it ran through the property. The group agreed to define the buffer at 100 feet, from the top of the stream bank, not the center of the stream. Dick asked about water flow off the proposed driveway. Peter explained that conditions within the draft decision addressed that issue.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and to approve the decision to-be-amended by Peter. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Greg rejoined the board and Zoë left the meeting at this time (8:30pm).
2-lot Subdivision –
Sketch Plan -
Jaime Ciffo said the home site was chosen based on soil tests that had indicated very few options for a conventional septic. He said the site was the only area within a ¼ mile of the road with suitable soils. He said it was not in agricultural use nor would it interrupt any ag use. He said two proposed locations had been indicated within the same raised, sloped area. He explained a timing situation regarding his application and a temporary structure – a mobile home already delivered to the property. He said they applied for a shed permit for the mobile home and do a change of use later if the sketch plan process goes after that timing, but that Peter had said they could move forward with the application without it. Jaime said both dwellings will not exist in use simultaneously, that a holding septic tank will be installed for temporary use.
Andrea Haulenbeek said the site was nice as it is shielded from the road by a ledge area and tree line. Jaime said there would not be any major site work as the house would be built into the land. He said there would be no clearing and that no streams or wetlands would be affected. He said they have already installed the first 100 feet of driveway in order to have the mobile home installed. Tom asked about the existing road; Andrea said it was a farm access road part of an old network that does not have to be used. Jaime said no culverts have been installed. He said they worked with Mike Anthony to configure the road and road cut.
Greg asked about culvert work near this site. Jaime said the work is on Peter Baldwin’s land; Andrea said where Peter has put in the culvert, he is improving access to his own land, using gravel where a road existed before.
Dick asked about a land feature in the center of the property; Alex said it was the height of the land (a peak). Lisa asked about the light patches shown on the map; Jaime said those were an old burn site. Tom asked about outbuildings; Jaime said the objects on the map were hay wagons. Dick asked about the ridge tree line height; Jaime said he thought trees were 30-40 feet high. Greg described them as a high shrub line, not tall trees. Jaime added that they have no intention of cutting them. Fred Haulenbeek said the ledge goes up there, with trees on top.
Access by fire vehicles was discussed. Andrea showed where the new driveway would access the property along a meadow, stating there are plenty of ways to access the farm property. Peter Erb asked if Andrea would reserve a ROW across the curb cut; she said yes. Tom explained this would be a minor 2-step subdivision process.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
The board voted to go into deliberative session at this time (8:55pm).
Other Business
Norris Subdivision – No action was taken.
Nelson Conditional Use – The permit was APPROVED, with a 5-0 vote, with Tom, Dennis, Greg, Lisa, and Ted (voting in absentia) and Amy not voting.
The meeting ended at approx. 9:15 pm. The next DRB meeting is scheduled for December 16th.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary
Attachment: 11/22 Burnett Site Visit observations prepared by Dick Jordan
ATTACHMENT
Dick Jordan’s observations from the Burnett Scrap Metal
site visit at 9am on 11/22/2008
I intend for these
items to be read verbatim at the
1. I
had asked if a magnetic grappler could be used versus the claw to perhaps
reduce the crushing and crashing noises.
It was noted that the materials involved would not be suited to using a
magnetic grapple.
2. While
idling, the grapplers are very quiet.
3. Only
1 of the grapplers was in operation during the site visit.
4. It
was noted that the height of the scrap piles are physically limited by the
reach of the grappler's arm.
5. For
the purposes of setting a visual reference for the observation from
6. It
was noted that while scrap would not be moved during the extended hours being
requested, trucks that were loaded during the previous day, will be departing
the yard prior to the yard being open to the public for business.
7. It
was noted by the Burnetts that the loading time of a truck was about 25
minutes. A neighbor stated it was more
like 45-75 minutes.
8. Noise
emanating from the southern part of the yard should be minimal as the area is
used primarily for storage and very little material processing is done
there.
9. It
was mentioned a western portion of the interior fence (separating the northern
and southern portions of the yard) would be removed to put up the new building.
10. When
asked if additional screening along 116 would be necessary do to the height of
the new building, it was thought the State screening requirement was limited to
scrap piles and not the buildings within the yard.
11. It
was noted that inspectors from various agencies had, coincidentally, just
visited the yard and noted their approval of the yard and its management. The Burnetts requested a written report. A copy of which should be provided to the
town/DRB for review.
12. A
single low spot in the wall along
13. There
was no fenced screen provided at the rear of the yard. State required fencing pertains only to views
from public roads (or perhaps strictly State highways, not clear on that
point). The rear of the yard was only
screened by deciduous trees (I believe not part of the Burnett property) which
offer far less screening in the winter.
14. The
earthen berm at the rear (SE corner) of the yard
seemed to do little to screen the view or sound from the SE due to the higher
elevation of the land to the SE of the yard.
Given the topology, any wall or berm would be
hard pressed to provide much of a view/sound barrier.
15. Did
not experience any of the "booming" sounds that were reported in the
DRB meeting by neighbors and the ZA. As
previously reported, the booms are likely from dropping the drag apparatus on
the concrete slab in the yard and slamming tailgates of dump trucks or doors on
roll-off hoppers. None of those events
occurred during the site visit.
16. Noted
general crashing and crushing sounds consistent with the grappling of loose materials
and muted, reverberating "booms" associated with releasing the
materials into a steel hopper (in this case a tractor-trailer).
17. Noted
the grappler operator appeared to lower the grapple as far as possible into the
hopper before releasing the materials.
This may be done primarily to compact the materials, but it also served
to reduce the crashing noises from materials being dropped into the
hopper. Small ways of reducing unnecessary
noise like this should be noted and exploited whenever possible.
18. Noted
small trees planted outside the fence along BF Rd could provide a more
appealing screen than the fence (or in conjunction with the fence), however,
for the most part, the trees appeared to be stunted likely due to lack of
sunshine caused by the fence and the larger overhanging trees that are inside
the fence.
19. If
the fence is extended, it was noted that replacing 8' sheets with 10' sheets
would be aesthetically preferable to tacking on 2' patches above the existing
sections. It was also noted that if the
entire fence was raised 2' versus just the low section, it would be cost
prohibitive to replace all 8' sections with 10' sections.
20. It
was commented that junk cars account for maybe 10% of the scrap being
processed. One vehicle was present on
the concrete slab at the time of the visit.
21. Observation Summary: In general, I can see how listening to the crashing sounds coming from the yard 11 hours a day during the week and 4 hours on Saturdays could be annoying to neighbors. In light of that, we should urge the Burnetts to continuously investigate new methods of processing their materials so as to reduce crashing and booming sounds to the extent reasonable given it is, after all, a scrap metal operation. Reducing the ambient noise level and sudden, sharp booming sounds is as much in the interest of their employees (who work immersed in this noisy environment) as it would be the neighborhood around the yard.