The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Alternates Jean Lane and Doug Pollock, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

ABSENT: Robert Bailey

VOTING MEMBERS: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, and Alternate Doug Pollock.

MINUTES:
Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Nona Homes, to approve the minutes of April 27, 2009, as written. Motion passes unanimously.

Case #09-02: Millstone Realty Trust, Jacqueline Docko, 1090 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 35. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 2.01 (C)(1)(a) and (b) to permit excavation activity.

The application is deemed complete. Peter Holden of Holden Engineering is present along with the applicant David Docko, and Dennis Lane from the Maine Drilling and Blasting Company.

Mr. Holden provides copies of the current zoning ordinance relative to this case. He displays a copy of a plan approved by the Northwood Planning Board and explains that the site is on Rte. 4 and was approved as an aggregate storage yard for equipment. Mr. Holden states that the applicant would like to expand the business and sell materials to the public: sand, gravel, stone, bark mulch, and also use the area as a yard for his own business and for parking of his own equipment.

Mr. Holden explains that currently Mr. Docko is taking material out, which is leveling the land according to the grading plan approved by the planning board. Material is being crushed and taken off site. Mr. Holden states that Mr. Docko would like to further expand the area as it is really not large enough for the current usage as storage for materials.

Mr. Holden states that the planning board feels that this operation is not just a site plan but is also an excavation plan; therefore, the request for a variance. Mr. Holden refers to Section 2.01C of the Northwood Development Ordinances for vibrations and noise created by this type of operation. Mr. Holden states that the vibrations are caused by blasting, which are done a few times per year and the noise also comes from blasting. He explains that once the land is leveled off and graded, the vibration and noise that is caused by the removal of the ledge, will not continue. He states that this is an effort to level the area off, to add drainage as recommended by the planning board, and end up with a yard to store materials, and park equipment. He adds that once the area is completely graded, the site will have a 1% slope from the road to the back area. The area will be used as a construction yard for sales, which cannot be done now. In addition, Mr. Holden states that Mr. Docko may want to do something else on the site such as a retail site in the future.

Mr. Farr states that the applicant is present for a variance for noise and vibrations; therefore, they are not disagreeing with the planning board.

Ms. Lane asks how big the area is and Mr. Docko replies that the entire lot is 25 acres with the proposal to open an additional 10 acres. Mr. Holden states that Mr. Docko has relocated the driveway and has a circulation plan for vehicles. He notes an area for an office with parking for employees and adds that there is also a parking area for the construction vehicles.

Referring to a previous approval Mr. Lavigne asks if the lot is not a lot that was owned by someone else that was proposed for another type of business. Mr. Docko replies no and states that that lot is a different lot, further back. Mr. Lavigne states that the applicant is requesting to change the topography to make a more useful area to develop for the business. Mr. Lavigne asks if after the land is changed and if he felt that it is useable, will the processing of the land be completed or will it be ongoing similar to a quarry. Mr. Docko states that the area would then be for material storage and materials would be transported in. He states that he is now creating the materials for himself to use.

Mr. Holden states that Mr. Docko has spoken to the surrounding neighbors and they do not have any issues. Mr. Farr states that there are no abutters present and no correspondence has been received from any abutters. Mr. Holden also explains that as part of the planning board process and state driveway permit, they must widen the shoulder on the opposite side of Rte. 4. This will affect the driveway of the abutter across the street and they have come to an agreement, in kind, to regrade the driveway and fix the garage. This will allow the property owner to see beyond the guardrail and will raise and level the driveway for better sight distance.

Ken Smith, from Maine Drilling and Blasting, provides additional information on blasting and vibrations. He explains that vibrations are measured by seismographs by inches per second and this is the best way to gauge possible damages to a structure. He further explains how blasting is related to vibration and noise. He states that during the blasting process their main concern and legally responsibility is to protect private property.

Mr. Smith continues to explain the different types of frequencies measured by hertz, as well as noise and audio levels, which are measured by decibels. Mr. Smith provides additional information about the blasting process and how it relates to vibrations and noise as well as how people can become acclimated to different types of noise and decibels. Mr. Smith states that a safe level for decibels is 140 decibels. He adds that many thunder claps during the summer months exceed this limitation. He notes that 40 MPH winds are also around 140 decibels, which is sound pressure.

Mr. Farr asks how much blasting remains to be done. Mr. Docko replies approximately 50,000 yards. Mr. Holden adds that the rest of the blasting would occur a few times per year over the next two to three years. Further explanation is provided that the location also affects the blasting when they are in a residential area; they tend to do smaller blasts to reduce the vibrations. He adds that the duration will decrease as they near the rear of the parcel as they can blast a larger area. Mr. Holden proposes 3 weeks of blasting in 2009, 2 weeks in 2010, and 2 weeks in 2011. Discussion ensues and Mr. Holden states that they believe the entire site work could be completed within a 5 year time frame. Mr. Farr asks what the total elevation will be and Mr. Docko replies that once completed the site will have dropped 30 ft.

Discussion ensues regarding the crushing operation and equipment. Mr. Docko explains that the crushing is ongoing 8 hours per day and he states that this year it was a total of 9 days to complete approximately 14,000 lbs. He adds that he would like to propose two time periods of crushing totaling 18 actual working, crushing days per year. Mr. Farr states that the first year this will affect the neighborhood for 5 weeks. Mr. Holden replies yes. Discussion ensues regarding noise levels of crushing equipment. Mr. Smith states that distance is a factor with noise levels. Mr. Docko states that truck back up alarms are at 95 decibels and while on a site with the crusher running, these truck alarms can still be heard over the crusher.

Mr. Docko states that proposed hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. M-F for the site and the crushing hours are proposed to be the same. Mr. Farr states that he would prefer to see the hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mr. Docko states that they typically work 10 hour days and it is more like 7:30 a.m. with the blasting not beginning until 8 a.m. or 9 a.m.

Additional discussion is held regarding a preblast survey, which is done to make the residents in the area prepared. The state notification requirement is 100 ft.; however, they notify within 250 ft. Mr. Holden states that Mr. Docko could notify all of the abutters when the blasting would be occurring.

Area Variance:
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
Mr. Holden states that the variance is to allow vibration created by crushing, blasting, and removal of ledge that exceeds 65 decibels measured at the property line during weekday (daylight) hours. He adds that the excavation activity is temporary and is a small area. The activity is not intended to be an ongoing excavation operation and the long term goal is to create a retail site by selling materials and eventually make a retail storage site. The excavation will be carried out during daylight hours and will be for three weeks this year (2009) and then continue two weeks for four years.

2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
Mr. Holden states that the ultimate result of the excavation is a highly valued retail site. The retail use will not burden the school system or other local department. Furthermore, local businesses and citizens will use the product created by the retail site.

3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner. Mr. Holden explains that the property is currently steep and ledgy. It is very hard to use and the condition diminishes the viability of most uses including the retail.
a. the zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that: Mr. Holden states that the removal of the ledge and overburden is necessary for viable use of the existing property. He adds that the excavation will create a useable terrain by eliminating the slopes and ledge within the site. Furthermore, the strict application of the zoning would eliminate almost all uses on the property.

b. that no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because: Mr. Holden states that noise and vibration created would only occur during the blasting operations and the purpose of the ordinance appears to be to protect the public from on-going noise and vibration versus occasional/short term vibration associated with this activity for retail site construction.

c. the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others since:
Mr. Holden states that the project will modify the roadway entrance by widening the shoulder on the opposite side so that motorists are not inconvenienced by trucks turning left into the site. He adds that during the blasting and crushing operations, the neighbors properties will be monitored to make sure that there is no damage incurred.

Mr. Farr asks why it is necessary to flatten 10 acres to make this area a useable property. Mr. Holden states that the ultimate goal is to make the area a retail site. Aggregate sales will be in front of the lot with storage in the back, and hopefully an area in the middle as a retail store. He adds that the area could be used; however, the proposed operation may not work. Mr. Farr states that the land is still useable and could it be used for something else. Mr. Holden replies yes, it could be used; however, there is still a portion that would not be useable as it is steep and rocky. He adds that the neighbor’s lot is unique in that they required filling, the opposite of what is being done here.

4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice. Mr. Holden states that Mr. Docko is trying to run an operation here that is beneficial to the town. He is turning land into a tax paying business for now and in the future. The inconvenience that is being created right now will be offset by the benefit of a business in the future.

5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Holden states that the ordinance seems to try protecting the public yet encourages business and development. He states that this is exactly what they plan to do, use the land and plan for the future. He adds that the grading plan works now and will in the future. He adds that there will be minimum impact to the neighbors.

Mr. Farr expresses concern with the amount of time requested for the blasting and crushing. Mr. Holden states that the blasting will be done just a couple of weeks each year. He explains that this has been going on and has been done within a few weeks time frame.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to grant a conditional variance to allow a maximum of four weeks for blasting and crushing per year, until 2013; with the hours of operation M-F from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sat. 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and no Sundays, and notification of activity to be provided to the code enforcement officer.

Mr. Lavigne explains that he offered the motion this way through 2013 to allow for some reason to make up if there were a lean year or two. He states he believes that this is a reasonable use for the type of land that this is and the land should be as level as possible due to the equipment being used and the line of site. He adds that he feels that the 5 conditions have been met if a conditional variance can be granted.

Mr. Pender asks about the safe time frame for working. Mr. Docko states that working with mechanical equipment varies and he explains that some days are half days, some full, and some days nothing can be done. He adds that there is a daily log that shows that there were 9 days of crushing this year with approximately 10,000 yards from blasting. He adds that the process should move faster as the project nears the rear of the property. Mr. Pender suggests alternative times for consideration and discussion.

Mr. Farr states that there has been a strong case provided for the limited use of the lot. He states that justice has been met given the character of the neighborhood. He adds that this process will affect the quality of life for the neighborhood and he feels that the hours are a large impact as well. However, he does agree with the time frame of four weeks per year. Mr. Farr states that it is his job to represent the abutters.

Mr. Pender asks Mr. Docko regarding the total time until completion is three years. Mr. Docko replies that he likes the idea of 5 years especially with the existing topography. He does not have any problem with stopping at 5 p.m. and not doing blasting or crushing on Saturdays.
Mr. Lavigne withdraws his motion and Mr. Pender withdraws the second.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to grant a conditional variance to allow the following:
• A maximum period of five weeks for all drilling, blasting and crushing activity to occur through the end of 2009;
• A maximum period of four weeks for all drilling, blasting and crushing activity to occur annually, through 2013;
• Hours of operation when drilling, blasting and crushing activity is allowed: Monday through Friday from 7am to 5:30 pm; Saturday 7am to 5pm; no Sundays;
• Notification to be provided to the Town of Northwood Code Enforcement Officer of blasting/drilling/crushing activity, prior to beginning activity, for each period the activity occurs.

Mr. Lavigne states that this is a good proposal and a reasonable use. Mr. Pender agrees and states that all conditions have been met. Ms. Holmes feels that this is a reasonable use for the property.

Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Adjournment:
Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page