Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING May 14, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci, Chair Jack Currier, Vice Chair J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson David Creed Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Reppucci explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Reppucci explained how testimony will be given by applicants, those speaking in favor or in opposition to each request, as stated in the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) By-laws. Mr. Reppucci also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. John J. Flatley Company (Owner) 100-300 Innovative Way (Sheet A Lot 798) requesting special exception to work within an “other” wetland and wetland buffer for the development of Tara Heights Apartments Phase II, and the extension of Digital Drive. PI & RC Zones, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier JP Boucher Rick Johnson David Creed Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A. 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH Atty. Prunier said that they have a complete application, with responses to the nine special wetland regulations. He said that they have received Conservation Commission approval, and the approval letter is in the package. He said that this project has been before the Board before, this is the second phase of the building. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 2 No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the application on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Currier stated that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. He stated that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or will not unduly impair pedestrian safety. He said it will not overload public water, sewer drainage or other municipal systems. Mr. Currier stated that special regulations are fulfilled, the nine criteria for wetlands have been fulfilled and will be complied with as stated in the application, and the use will not be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of residents. Mr. Currier said that the Conservation Commission approval was on April 4, 2013, with five stipulations of approval, which the applicant has agreed to abide by. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. George A. & Deborah L. Jacome (Owners) 10 Lisa Drive (Sheet B Lot 2467) requesting variance to encroach 10 feet into the 20 foot required right side yard setback to construct an attached 10’x20’ carport. R18 Zone, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson David Creed George Jacome, 10 Lisa Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Jacome said his application speaks for itself, the request is for a carport on the side of the house. He said it will be built to match the existing house and roof. He said there is an extra car, with no where to park it. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Currier asked how the carport will look in concert to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Jacome said it will look fine, because it will be tucked away, it will extend from the garage. He said that the house is tucked away, so that you probably won’t even be able to see it when you drive by, until you pull up to it. He said it will only be 10 feet off the roof, as well. Mr. Johnson asked where the extra car is being parked now. Mr. Jacome said it’s parked adjacent to the garage. He said the extra car is used during the summer, it’s a small sports car. Mr. Johnson asked what the hardship would be if the Board denies the request. Mr. Jacome said that his new car would be damaged. He said there are two trees that constantly drop tree sap, birds. He said he just bought a new car and wants to protect it from the environment. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: None. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve the application on behalf of the owner, as advertised. Mr. Boucher stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, and the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Boucher said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, also, the Board finds that it will not impact property values, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 4 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Celeste Ramalhinho (Owner) 110 Pine Hill Road (Sheet E Lot 1432) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot depth, 90 feet required, 70 feet proposed; and, 2) minimum rear yard setback, 30 feet required, 24 feet proposed – both requests to subdivide one lot into two lots and construct one single-family home on new lot. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson David Creed Richard Maynard, Maynard & Paquette Engineering Associates, 23 East Pearl Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Maynard said on the side of the property, it is encumbered by a 20-foot wide sanitary sewer easement, and the remnants of Spectacle Brook. He said they both run together for a considerable distance. He said the lot is 34,534 square feet lot, in the R9 zone, with double frontage, is certainly unique. Mr. Maynard said the proposal would subdivide one lot out of the existing property, it would be 9,452 square feet in size, and would meet all of the R9 criteria for dimensions. He said this area is a very unique situation. He said that from Warner Street to Pine Hill Road, there is some 149 feet of lot depth, and there is more than enough lot area. He said that city staff said that due to the desired location of the house facing Warner Street, that variances for lot depth, 70 feet proposed, 90 feet required, and for rear lot setback, 30 feet required, and 24 feet proposed, are necessary. Mr. Maynard said that there are several other instances in the neighborhood where the rear yard is less than the requirement. He said the request is very much in character with the neighborhood, and they have a petition signed by several neighbors in support of the variances as proposed, saying that it will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Maynard said that new construction in older neighborhoods tends to enhance property values. He said there should be no diminution of property values. Mr. Maynard stated that the request is not contrary to the public interest to allow construction of a moderately priced house on this large proposed lot of over 25,000 square feet, in the R9 zone, and will allow for substantial justice if granted. He said the lot will be conforming as to the area, and will justly be in the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said that due to the desired location of the house, facing Warner Street, two small variances are required, as ruled by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Maynard said for hardship, this is an extremely unique lot in this R9 neighborhood. He said that a 34,534 square foot lot in this zone is more than reasonable to allow the construction of a moderately priced house in this location. He said that there is no particular and unique relationship between the zoning ordinance and the restrictions on this property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Jason Moher, 3 Wilton Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Moher said he lives directly to the right of the property. He said his big concerns are watershed and drainage. He said that the subject property has a direct line of drainage towards his lot. He said his major concern is the water drainage, and described the water flow during rain events. He said he’s concerned about what will happen in his basement once they dig a foundation. He said another concern is that the house will be tall, and there is a very tall tree there, so the shadow will allow for much more shade. He said that the proposed house will negatively affect his property values, too. Mr. Currier asked if he has a basement in his house. Mr. Moher said that he does, its ¾ finished, the back section is bare to the concrete, it slightly has turned color, but hasn’t had a drop of water. He said they’re surrounded by critical wetlands. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Currier said if the proposed home is approved, and it’s two stories, if it would cause problems. Mr. Moher said his home is about 26 feet. He said a ranch wouldn’t affect it. He said a two-story home would cause considerable shadowing. Mr. Currier asked about the topography in his back yard, and which way it slopes. Mr. Moher said from the center of his house, it does flow down. Diane Smith, 7 Warner Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Smith stated that they’ve had debates about property lines, due to the corner by the street bend. She said they’ve tried to dress up the corner with mulch. She said the water from the proposed area where the new house would be, the water runs down into her back yard from their stream, but to put another house there, the water would run even more. She said every time there is a substantial amount of rain, the Ramalhinho’s yard is half full of water, and it runs into our yard. Mr. Currier asked if she has water in her basement. Ms. Smith said only once, but they had a landscaper come out and fix it. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Maynard pointed out that the lowest area is the Spectacle Brook area, and identified that the land does flow in a certain way, and there is no way that the new house will block the flow of ground water reaching Spectacle Brook. He said that the first sheet of his package shows the lot configurations. He said that the proposed house will have no effect on the groundwater. He said the shadowing that was mentioned will not be a factor. He said that there are no reported drainage problems in this neighborhood, it’s well controlled. He said the Planning Board will review the drainage information at the time of their submittal. Mr. Currier asked what the impact to the increase of the pervious surface will be with the proposed house. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 7 Mr. Maynard said the new house will have a very small percentage of the pervious area. He said the groundwater will run towards the low-lying critical wetland area, and into the open remnants of Spectacle Brook. He said there’s no point where it will go beyond that, to the other side. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Reppucci said that Mr. Maynard’s testimony about the drainage indicated that it will be going away from his property, towards the culvert. Mr. Moher said all the water flows to the corner. Mr. Reppucci said that he didn’t follow how this could be of concern, since the drainage flows in another direction. Mr. Moher said that the water can flow only so fast before it builds up in his direction. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the application on behalf of the owner, as advertised. Mr. Reppucci stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, and the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, also, the Board finds that it will not impact property values, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. Ansel Grandmaison, Scrap Metals, Inc. (Owner) Ansel Grandmaison, Building Products Recycling Operations, LLC (Applicant) 128 East Glenwood Avenue (Sheet 131 Lots 8-15; 48-54) requesting special exception to expand a nonconforming use to allow the recycle of asphalt shingle tear-offs into a recycled aggregate. RA Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 8 Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson David Creed Steven Radel, Chadwick Way, Hopkington, MA. Mr. Radel said he is a consultant and partner in the proposed activity. He said that they are not an asphalt production plant. He said that they are a proposed asphalt shingle recycling operation. He said what they’d like to do is to receive asphalt shingles and recycle them into raw materials that can be used to make roadway materials, and/or get put back into a hot mix asphalt process in the region. Mr. Radel said that over the past 25 years, asphalt shingle recycling has taken on a surge in the United States. He said that due to the price of oil skyrocketing, the recycle of shingles has been more prominent in recent years. He said that the tipping fees to dispose of asphalt shingles in landfills, even if they accept them, is very expensive, and in Massachusetts, there are six entities that take asphalt shingles for recycling. Mr. Radel said that what they want to do is all under the NH DES. He said they’ve submitted an application to the State of NH, saying that they want to take asphalt shingles and turn them into a product that can be re-used, instead of being disposed. He said their intent on re-use is to make an additive that can be delivered to hot mix facilities in the region, and those facilities typically add about 5% by weight of shingle material into their process. Mr. Radel said for the process, they’d receive tear-off asphalt shingles from roofers and haulers that have worked with roofing contractors. He said the material would come to the site, be inspected for the presence of asbestos, and would then be stockpiled. He said the process is simple. He said if the load contains asbestos, it is rejected. He said if there’s more than 10% of waste in the load, it’s also rejected, or, if there are any other abnormalities in the load, it’s rejected. Mr. Radel said after a certain period of time, the stockpile is ground into raw material. He said that there is a contractor Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 9 who comes in his truck to grind the materials. He said the grinding machine cost over $750,000 upwards to a million dollars. He said the driver of these contracted trucks operate 365 days a year, and go coast to coast. He said it’s typically a 1-3 day process. He said the materials are screened, it’s one pass through the grinder, horizontal grinder, and it’s on a trailer truck. He said they’d use a front end loader to load the shingles into the horizontal tub, it grinds it, and then it’s sent out as product. He said its ground into quarter-inch material, those fine materials are sought by the hot oil asphalt production facilities. He said the greater than quarter-inch materials are used to blend with aggregate to make the paving materials. Mr. Radel said that one of the greatest concerns with working with recycling asphalt shingles is the content of asbestos within shingles, and a lot of testing has occurred with shingles to assess the situation. He said shingles with asbestos fibers in them haven’t been made since the early 1980’s. He said that EPA published a report many years ago, and it indicated that 1½% of the sites reported having asbestos. He said they’ll inspect the shingles and the debris for asbestos, and if found, the load will be rejected. He said they’ll also use a certified asbestos inspector as well, a third party, to also report to the State. Mr. Radel said that for traffic, right now their best guess is that there will be between 800-1,000 tons of material can be recovered for recycling. He said most of that will be April through November season for construction. He said that’s thirty or thirty-five weeks to bring in 1,000 tons of shingle, in a 20- ton truck, is 50 trucks. He said that is about an extra of about 2 trucks a week during that period. He said they’re going to try to combine trips with the existing scrap metal operation. He said it is a grinding machine, and they’ll use water to keep the dust to a minimum. He said the activity will be a significant benefit to the community. He said that some of the material will be used for accessways and roadways in the development that will be beneficially re-used. He said that they believe in the process, and believe in the material. He said that there is a significant track record of success with this operation. Mr. Reppucci said he wanted to put himself in a position of someone who lives near there. He said there has to be specs on the equipment, the noise, how dust is controlled. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 10 Mr. Radel said that dust is controlled by watering throughout the process. He said he couldn’t obtain the amount of decibels, but said he’d try to provide it. Mr. Reppucci said that when reviewing the State’s website, there was a letter in the file relative to this property explaining what the aggregate is, and how the aggregate is used. He said it appeared that the people from the State weren’t too familiar with this operation. Mr. Radel said that every State is different with regards to obtaining permits. He said that New Hampshire doesn’t have as much experience with this as other States do. Mr. Johnson asked to confirm that they don’t intend to operate a hot asphalt mix. Mr. Radel said that they will not be operating a hot mix asphalt operation. He said that is a messy operation and they’re not set up to do that. Mr. Johnson asked about some of their materials being used for internal roadways, and asked how that would be done without mixing any of the materials. Mr. Radel said it would be mixed, it would be the blend that is proposed in the permit. He said it’s not a hot mix, it’s blended with aggregate and thrown into the ground, without any heat, it’s a patch process. Mr. Johnson asked where the studies were done from EPA. Mr. Radel said there were samples from all across the country, but the bulk of them were from Massachusetts. Mr. Boucher asked about the incoming loads, and how it’s checked, whether it’s checked when the load is still on the container, or if it’s dumped out and checked. Mr. Radel said that the initial visual inspection is done before its dumped. He said after it’s dumped, a complete inspection is dumped, because a lot of the material is on the bottom and not visible beforehand. He said that anything obvious is rejected. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 11 Mr. Boucher asked if there will be certified inspectors that are trained to see asbestos, and how is there a guarantee that there is always someone on the site that is certified. Mr. Radel said that the loads coming in are going to be inspected by facility personnel, two or three people, and after that, if the material passes inspection, at that time a certified asbestos inspector will come, that has all the DES requirements. Mr. Boucher asked about the size of the stockpiled material. Mr. Radel said to bring the grinder in, you need a sufficient amount of material, as it’s very expensive. He said a minimum size is 1,000 tons of material, which is about 40’x60’, 20 feet tall. He said it has to be a significant size. Mr. Reppucci said for a special exception, one of the points of law is that the request doesn’t substantially impact the neighborhood. He asked how many trucks and trips will be on the roadway with the proposed use. He asked what data they have about the additional traffic coming to the site. Mr. Radel said he doesn’t have any data on the trips now. He said that if a roofing contractor has small job, they’ll load it on a truck and bring it in. He said most of the roofers are using boxes, about 95% of the materials coming in will be from boxes. Mr. Reppucci said he’s picturing hundreds of these things, every time someone gets a new roof, some truck is coming to this site from East Glenwood Drive. Mr. Radel said he doesn’t have a good handle on what the marketplace will bear. He said their estimate on 1,000 tons is just what he’s read in the marketplace. Mr. Reppucci said it looks as if there is plenty of room to store and stockpile the material. He said that the grinding noise, the vehicle trips, and the airborne particulates that need to be addressed. He said that this is the burden of the applicant, and have to be adequately addressed for the Board. He said that there seems to be a ton of data that must be out there, that he needs to make an intelligent decision. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 12 Mr. Currier asked where they propose to stockpile, and grind. Mr. Radel pointed out the location on the map. Mr. Currier said he tried to picture what the grinder looks like. He said he likened it to a road scarifier, and there’s always a cloud of dust, and you can smell it. He asked if there will be a little bit of dust, or a lot. Mr. Radel said the process involves soaking the material when it’s being grinded, so it virtually eliminates dust. He said in prior days, the grinders used to get very hot. He said that the water is used for dust suppression. He said that the whole grinding operation is flooded with water, sprayed, and it virtually eliminates the dust. He said he didn’t have any noise decibel figures, but could obtain them. Mr. Currier said he doesn’t have a lot of faith in what could be dumped at the site, as far as pure shingles. He said that it’s likely that there will be asbestos dumped there. He said that the policing activities will have to be perfect, because roofers will want to hide the bad stuff. Mr. Radel said that they’re not naïve to that, and the people that are trying to hide things may try, but it won’t be taken lightly. He said they’re trying to only work with reputable people. Mr. Johnson asked how many of these types of operations have they already fielded, so that there is some anecdotal information on, and, are there any of these facilities that approval has been given by a municipality in a zone where the use is not allowed. Mr. Radel said that no two sites or locations are alike, so everything is unique. He said he’s been involved with six different sites, all over the country. He said that there’s always noise and activity at the sites, it’s the nature of the use. He said there’s no site that he’s been involved with that’s very similar to the proposed site. Mr. Johnson asked how the water is used and collected. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 13 Mr. Radel said it’s percolated into the ground, there’s no collection or separator of the water. He said it’s really a dust knockdown use. Mr. Reppucci remarked that the company has had a very clean record in the past, and has been in compliance with the State. He also said he appreciated the applicant’s honesty with answering questions, and it shows that they’re doing things in an above-board way. Mr. Reppucci asked how long the grinder runs for. Mr. Radel said it’s typically 8-10 hours, maybe 12 hours, but it’s during the typical workday. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Richard Maynard, 48 Farmington Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Maynard said that the Board has nothing for a plan to show where the use is on the land, and the Board has no idea where the shingle storage will be. He said the plan is totally inadequate, and the Board cannot assume that it’s an expansion of a nonconforming use. He said there is no idea how to judge what the expansion will be, 10%, 50%, or 100% expansion of the use. He said the proposed use is a totally different type of operation, creating asphalt. He said the site is also in the flood plain, and said the storage of all these shingles is not a good idea. He said he’s heard no testimony about the fact that this is in the Shoreland Protection Area, and they have jurisdiction of 1,000 feet from waterways, and intense jurisdiction on the first 250 feet. He said the water runoff into the ground without a containment area is ludicrous, as it will eventually go into the river. He said there are no figures for the amount of truck traffic, but the 20-ton trucks are huge, and would be going through residential neighborhoods. He said that this is industrial style traffic, and it’s a substantial increase to this neighborhood on roads that cannot handle this load. Dianne Dion, 32 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Dionne pointed out the Scrap Metals use in relation to her property. She said Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 14 the proposed use is entirely different, and different in character and use. She said the current use is already loud enough, and is disturbing. She said the mixing and grinding of shingles will be unacceptable to the neighborhood. She said if a majority of the months they’d do this are summer, that’s when people are out enjoying their yards with family. She said the diesel fumes and odors, and dust created, are already invading the air quality and our neighborhood. She said the trucks will travel through our residential neighborhood, and it’s unknown how many. She said this is a manufacturing process, and it will substantially expand the use that’s already there. She said the trucks will spill things out the back, going on people’s lawns. Raymond Guarino, 59 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Guarino read the DOT specs for recycled materials, and said that they don’t accept any recycled shingles that are ground up if they’re ground up from shingles that have 2 or 3 layers. He said they’re going to have 20-ton trucks on the residential streets, and these streets cannot handle this type of traffic. He said they’re also going through a school zone, with little children walking. He said the integrity and character of the neighborhood will change. Eirikur Holt, 16 June Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Holt said her concern is the safety of the children. She said there are at least 50 kids walking to school, the school is a walking district, and the kids have to walk, not ride a bus. She said that the streets have no sidewalks. She said the expansion of the use will also mean more employees that could be speeding through the neighborhood. She said she is concerned about the kid’s safety. Tiffany Holmes, 46 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Holmes pointed out that there were a number of discrepancies between the application and the Waiver. She said there are a lot of broad- based claims that have no evidence as to why this case should be approved. She said that there are numerous environmental impacts about the shingles being stockpiled. Megan Holmes, 46 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Holmes said she’s lived here for about six years. She said people are out walking, kids are playing, it’s a great neighborhood. She said she is extremely concerned about the shingle operation, that it will change the neighborhood drastically. She said there is a big risk of releasing a lot of dust and particles in the air. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 15 She said the Sunset Elementary School is very close, and is concerned about the safety of the children. She said it is going to be very difficult to check the shingles, and there will be other materials that are harmful in them, such as PAH, which has known carcinogens. Teresa Garcia, 9 Louisburgh Square, Nashua, NH. Ms. Garcia said she lives about a mile and a half away, but is speaking for her mother, who lives at the corner of South Main Street and Glenwood Avenue. She said that during the day, it is very busy with school buses, and many children walking. She said she is concerned about the water, and where it will go after watering the shingles. She said her understanding of asbestos is that it’s not dangerous until it becomes airborne, and the loading and unloading of it will cause it to be airborne. She said she has concerns with the amount of asphalt shingles being stored there, and loose items such as nails falling off the bed of the trucks. Andre Michaud, 19 April Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Michaud said he used to work with gas companies, and worked with piping. He said these trucks that they proposed to use will give problems to the underground gas lines, and to the connections. He said there is a possibility of having gas leaks. Barbara Nelson, 30 April Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Nelson said it’s a middle-class neighborhood, with residents of all ages. She said that a lot of these nearby residents have lost money in their homes in recent years, and the proposed use will make property values go down even more. Tracy Pierce, 109 East Glenwood Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Pierce said a lot of her concerns have already been addressed. She asked how the grandfathered clause works, and wanted to know if the shingles business would also be grandfathered in, and if this site could turn into another type of recycling site. She said if the shingle use is just a continuation of the Grandmaison use, it’s a different matter. She asked how much the grinder weighs, and the other impacts on the road that the grinder will cause. Mr. Reppucci said for the grandfathered issue, that is what is before the Board tonight. He said that the present application indicates that although it’s an expansion, it’s reasonable for him to expand. He said if the Board finds to approve the Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 16 special exception to expand, they’re really saying that it’s an expansion of the business that the Board finds allowable. Laurene Johnson, 9 April Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Johnson said she didn’t have a good comfort level with the applicant’s presentation about the assessment of the materials that would be brought in. She said that by having a third party inspector come in a couple times a year to inspect for asbestos control does not give a comfort level that this is safe. Michael McInerny, 21 Dickerman Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. McInerny stated that he is speaking for Walter and Priscilla Cepulinski, of 113 East Glenwood Street. Mr. McInerny said his clients raised the same concerns as everyone else so far. He asked if the applicant has explored any alternate sites. He said that during the construction season, it is a busy period, and he asked about traffic control. He said that there is school bus drop off and pick up twice a day during school. He said that trucks will be going right through Rivier University as well. He said that there will be a lot of stockpiled flammable material as well, and asked if there will be a limit of it. He said that Grandmaison is already stockpiling shingles at the site. Robert Dionne, 32 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dionne asked where they’re going to get the water to use on the grinder. He said there’s no water back there. He said that Pan Am won’t let him put water pipes under their railroad tracks. He said in their application to the State of NH, it states that they intend to bring in shingles from an area of 30 miles away, so this won’t be a local use. Alderman Jim Donchess, 4 Rockland Street, Nashua, NH. Ald. Donchess said that the establishment of a shingle processing operation is a new use, not an expansion of an existing use. He said it’s a new use, and should require a variance. He said based upon the representations made to DES, that there would be 3,000 tons of material processed per year, which is different from the ZBA application. He said even using 20-ton trucks, there is a lot of trips. He said that there is no way that these streets can handle 20-ton trucks. He said that by reducing the weight of the trucks to 5-ton trucks, it will increase the number of trucks, and it will be out of character with the neighborhood. He said the damage to the infrastructure is reason enough to deny the request. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 17 Dan Rahilly, 119 East Glenwood Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Rahilly said he’s the last house on the right before entering Elgin Street. He said Mr. Grandmaison is getting paid to dump. He said the first level of money is when the gates swing open. He said that he’s really putting in a second business down there. He said that hypothetically, if he has tons and tons of shingles stockpiled, and what if he goes out of business, it will be an environmental nightmare to get rid of them. He said the business may be fine, but just not here at this location. Brian Demanche, 18 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Demanche said that this place is a junkyard. He said its right there, in full view out of the kitchen window. He said that there are all sizes of trucks going to his site every day, and most of them are uncovered. He said that there is a lot of material that falls out of the truck beds and lands in his yard. He said the river creates a wind tunnel, and there are items blowing all over. He said the shingles can get old and rotted, and if they’re picked up, it could create a problem with particles in the air. He said the trucks and traffic is a big issue here, and it’s a family neighborhood, the proposed expansion should be denied. Vasilios Pervanas, 14 March Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Pervanas said you can hear and feel the trucks going by to their site every day. He said that this is not the type of business that should be allowed to expand in this neighborhood. He said this expansion will cause health issues in the neighborhood, and it will be to the expense of the residents. He said that this is the wrong type of business to expand in this area. Robert Prowker, 35 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Prowker said that scrap metals are materials that come out of the soil, and shingles are not made out of scrap metal. He said it’s a totally different use with different components. Herman West, 34 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. West said he’s most concerned with the safety of his children. He said there will be more big trucks and traffic, which allows more chances for accidents to happen. He said that a 20-ton truck takes longer to stop if a child runs out in the street, as some kids don’t look both ways. He said the streets aren’t safe because there are no sidewalks. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 18 Joan Shalek, 24 Elgin Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Shalek said that there are trucks running at 5:00 a.m.. She said if they are allowed to have bigger trucks, it’s even more of a problem. She said that their equipment makes a lot of noise, and Grandmaison doesn’t care about the neighborhood, when he wants to do something, he doesn’t care what day or time it is. Jean Nichols, 33 April Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Nichols said she’s been in the neighborhood for 42 years. She passed out some handouts to the Board. She said it’s an environmental study about asphalt shingle recycling. She said there are a lot of recommendations about handling asphalt shingles, and she questioned how they could possibly oversee that these recommendations will happen. She said that there are so many pre-cautions that need to be taken, including white-suiting. She said that this is in a residential neighborhood, and it’s only feet away from homes and children playing outside. She said she’s seen the health problems in the neighborhood. She mentioned the many health problems connected with asbestos and light particulates coming off the asphalt shingles. Marianne Proulx, 19 June Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Proulx said that the residents are concerned about the health and welfare of the neighborhood, and the property values. She said they are clearly impacting the environment with more dust, more noise, and the asbestos will impact people’s health, and the impact to the children playing outside. She said it will definitely decrease property values. Tim Twombly, 120 East Hobart Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Twombly said that the character and integrity of the neighborhood forever. He said safety of children is a major issue as they walk to and from school on the streets without sidewalks. He said the proposed truck traffic for this new endeavor will allow for more strangers to drive through the neighborhood. He said there may be 1,200 truck trips that would be additional during the construction season. He said along with the asbestos, there will be other contaminants in the air, creating many environmental hazards to the neighborhood. He said that there has been expansion at this facility, without any approval, for years. He said that the extra machinery and trucks has raised the noise level to unsatisfactory levels. He said that this is the last straw, safety and health are too important to ignore. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 19 Mr. Radel said that they’ll go back and take another look at the data, and the data that they looked at the past couple months gave them the estimate of the 1,000 tons. He said it could be more or could be less. He said that they put in a higher estimate for the State application, they were just approximate numbers. He said that they would follow industry standards. He said that the shingles that they’d be dealing with may or may not even have asbestos in them. Mr. Radel said to make the paving material, the shingle is ground up, and it already has sand and other small aggregates in it, and it’s mixed with other aggregate to make the material. Mr. Reppucci asked about the water situation. Mr. Radel said it’s a potential limiter for them, they’d have to put water tanks in and refill them. Mr. Johnson asked how large the grinding machine is, and what it’s dimensions are, what does it take to run it. Mr. Radel said that it fits on a tractor trailer, and meets the legal load limits, so it’s like a tractor pulling a trailer that has the grinder on it. He said it meets the highway weights. He said that this machine goes coast to coast. He said it’s a mobile system. Mr. Creed said that he heard that the grinder and it’s trailer and tractor would meet the lower limit for weight on highways, and asked how it would fare on the residential streets it would have to go on to access the site. Mr. Radel said that they wouldn’t go over bridges that have limitations, and wouldn’t go on streets that couldn’t handle the weight. Mr. Currier said that his expectation, relative to incoming quality control should consist of procedures with sign-off’s that are validated. He said that he needs to see some sort of written procedure, so it’s just not a guy with a rake looking at it. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 20 Mr. Radel said that is a reasonable request, the roofers in this situation have an obligation in this too, and their own inspector will verify if there’s any asbestos also. Mr. Currier said the water that would be watering the shingles down and going into the ground, he said he’d need to have data from DES that says that this is approved, and the groundwater will be safe. He said that with these houses so close, that requirement should be a bare minimum. Mr. Radel said that the industry norms for this, the biggest concern, is runoff into a nearby stream, or river. He said as precious as the water is going to be in this area, they’ll want to collect it and re-use it. He said that PAH’s are definitely part of the shingles, they are in your asphalt, driveway, and street, grilled charcoal, they are abundant, but they are also a carcinogen, and don’t readily dissolve in water. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Twombley said that by the applicant saying that they are concerned with the issues raised here this evening, that they should just withdraw their application now. He said that if they follow industry standards, then it should be done in a commercially zoned area, not this residential area. He said that the asphalt shingles are made from petroleum, which is oil, which does burn, some places use this for fuel. He said that they have a real hazardous site in the making. He said that the gas mains are two and a half feet under the street, and a lot of heavy truck traffic is proposed, and it will cause real problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said he’s not in favor of the application. He said in Land Use Code Section 190-119 (B), the subcomponents a, b and c, he said the beginning of 119, it references Section 190-134, and with 134, there are conditions that he didn’t believe they met. He said for special exceptions, the second criteria relative to traffic, and the items that Mr. Trombley mentioned in his rebuttal, the general infrastructure is for residential use, and this request is a different use, not for an expansion of what is already there. Mr. Creed said right from the start, there were questions asked of the applicant that couldn’t be answered. He said he doesn’t think he can make a decision without answers to the questions Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 21 asked earlier, especially on traffic, and number of trucks. He said at this point, it’s not going to be a yes, maybe it’ll be tabled, but is leaning towards no. Mr. Boucher said he is against the application. He said he’s not comfortable with the lack of information, and said he wouldn’t be in favor, but would deny the application just on the traffic and safety. He said that their staff will have to be trained for dealing with asbestos. Mr. Currier said that the question has been raised to table the request so that the applicant can do their due diligence to get the information that the Board has asked for. He said he was leaning towards a table in the essence of a due diligence. Mr. Reppucci said he’s leaning towards denying the request. He said that the applicant was not prepared. He said that even a lay person would know what would be necessary to meet even the minimum standards for the special exception to expand a nonconforming use, which, after seeing what was presented, agrees with why the Planning Department was looking at this as an expansion of a nonconforming use, because so little of the information that it goes beyond that was even presented to us. He said the traffic and vehicle trips numbers make no sense. He said that there is no question that it doesn’t meet the special exception standards. He said the special exception was not appealed, because the letter was withdrawn. Mr. Reppucci said they may be able to come back for this request as a variance, and didn’t think it would violate the Fisher v. Dover, it would be a separate application. He said it would be a higher burden, though. He said it’s inconceivable to him that they wouldn’t know the answers to some of the information that the Board has asked about. He said he’s surprised he didn’t hear answers to some of the traffic questions. He said it’s a very complicated question as to whether or not this is an expansion, or a completely different use. He said it’s not a simple issue, and an argument could easily be made that this is a natural expansion, with new technologies. He said that unequivocally, this is a pretty significant change to this neighborhood, it doesn’t meet the criteria for a special exception, and, if they want to come back for a variance, the Board has laid out a very clear roadmap for the data and information we need. He said he doesn’t have a good picture of what the grinding machine looks like, or does. He said that the Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 22 applicant just wasn’t prepared. He said he’s inclined to say that there is no way they meet the special exception criteria. Mr. Johnson said that just with the infrastructure alone, it does not meet the special exception criteria. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny the application as advertised. He stated that it is listed in the Table of uses, as Section 190-119. He said that the Board finds that the use will create undue traffic congestion, and unduly impair the pedestrian safety to the standard that is required for the special exception, it’s going to go beyond that. Mr. Reppucci said that it’s unclear on the public water, and doesn’t feel comfortable saying that it won’t impact it, and the Board doesn’t have the data available to know about it. Mr. Reppucci said that the special regulations that are required to meet the special exception criteria are not met, in that the Board finds that the increase in traffic will violate the requirement for the special exception, and it will violate the New London standard for testing nonconforming uses. Mr. Reppucci said that the use will impair the integrity and be out of character with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, morals and welfare of the residents. He said that he’s inclined to say that he’ll leave that alone in this motion, he said he’s not comfortable saying we’ve had credible testimony, or expert testimony that indicates that the health morals and welfare of the residents would be impacted, he said there’s a lot of circumstantial information that suggests that it would, but whereas we don’t have any kind of specification on what the impact on the neighborhood would be, he said he’s inclined to say that the Board can’t answer that, and therefore, it doesn’t meet the special exception requirement. He said as a special condition, a variance to request relief on this property would not create a Fisher v. Dover circumstance, as it would be a completely different application. SECONDED by Mr. Creed. Mr. Johnson asked if they do apply for a variance, would the Fisher v. Dover be dealt with separately. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 14, 2013 Page 23 Mr. Reppucci said it’s not worth putting it in there, the Board would just hear it anyway. He said to take out the special condition. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases that have Regional Impact. REHEARING REQUESTS: None. MINUTES: 4-23-13: MOTION by Mr. Creed to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 (Mr. Repucci abstained) ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 10:58 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing