TOWN OF PITTSFORD
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 16, 2011
Zoning Board of Adjustment Members Present – Jack Orvis, Jim Morale, Clarence Greeno, Rick Conway, Vice Chairman Absent: Stanley Markowski, Chairman (recused), Jack Shedd, and John Mitchell (Alternate)
Others Present – Lawrence Marzec-Gerrior, Mary Marzec-Gerrior, Allen Hitchcock, Bob Harnish, Glenn Spaulding, Anita Lyon, Kim Lyon-Pratt, Kathy McVey, Scott McVey, Kelley Lyon, Cornelia Crocker, Atty. Gary Kupferer, Betty Boubow (for Alton Barrows), Keith Maseroni, Christine Maseroni, David Fitzgerald, Thomas Shannon, Bruce Rowe, Tim Petit, Brian Beaudoin, Matt Poirier, Bob Steadman, Atty. Harry Ryan, Madelyn Erb, Tom Carrara, Amy Loomis – Zoning Administrator, and Kelly Giard – Recording Secretary.
Rick Conway, Vice Chair, called the Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:00 PM.
R. Conway explained that the purpose of the meeting was for a Conditional/Non-Conforming Use permit. The property is located at property owned by Roger and Erma Rowe on Furnace Road, Pittsford. The notice was posted at the Town of Pittsford Municipal Offices on April 28, 2011. The notice was also posted in the Rutland Herald on April 28, 2011. The certificate of mailing was dated April 26, 2011.
R. Conway introduced the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. There were no parties stating conflict of interest. Mr. Conway explained the rules of the meeting.
R. Conway swore in Mr. Marzec-Gerrior, Mrs. Marzec-Gerrior, Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Spaulding, Ms. Anita Lyon, Ms. Lyon-Pratt, Ms. McVey, Mr. McVey, Ms. K. Lyon, Atty. Kupferer, Mr. Petit, Mr. Beaudoin, Mr. Poirier, Atty. Ryan, Mr. Steadman and Ms. Erb.
The proposed project is for a Conditional Use permit by Casella Construction at property owned by Roger and Erma Rowe. The property is located at 1051 Furnace Road; parcel ID # 0658 and the State of Vermont (197 Academy Road) parcel ID # 1737 in Pittsford. R. Conway indicated that the purpose of the permit is for a Conditional Use for development of 15.6 acres of land owned by the State of Vermont and the Rowe’s for use as a gravel extraction facility, construction of scales, scale house, and washroom. The volume of the product to be extracted over 10 – 20 years is approximately 1,250,000 cubic yards. The hours of operation will remain the same (Monday through Friday 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM and Saturday from 7:00 AM – 12:00 Noon, excluding all major Federal Holidays).
R. Conway read the warning as the warning was posted in the normal places around town.
A. Loomis gave a history of the receipt of the application. The permit was received with a letter from Timothy Petit. The project is located in the Rural District, thus, requiring a Conditional Use review.
Mr. Steadman explained that Casella is aware that the neighbors have some concerns and presented Sanborn Head Engineers, who made a presentation for the public to review.
Mr. Poirier explained the map and aerial view of the proposed project. Mr. Poirier indicated that he is the Principal in charge of the project and Brian Beaudoin is the Project Engineer.
Mr. Poirier explained each slide as it was presented and carefully explained each segment as the project would progress. Mr. Poirier explained that when an agreement was reached with between the Rowe’s and Casella Construction, the existing Act 250 permit was amended, with more conditions than in the original permit. Mr. Poirier explained some of the stipulations that were imposed. Mr. Poirier indicated that the permit expired on October 15, 2010. Mr. Poirier indicated that it was an oversight by Casella Construction that the permit had expired and gravel extraction was still occurring. Mr. Steadman indicated that he received a call from Kelley Lyons indicating that the permit to operate had expired on October 15, 2011. Mr. Poirier indicated that the permit indicates that the site must be reseeded and reclaimed before June 17, 2011 and this work is occurring now. Mr. Steadman indicated that Casella’s Construction has not received any calls, to his knowledge, complaining about the operation at the gravel pit. Mr. Poirier indicated that the gravel pit is an excellent source for clean sand and small stone, the pit area is also good for local contractors as it is close, and is used by local municipalities for winter sand.
Mr. Poirier explained that there will be no change in the hours of operation and the Act 250 permit indicates that there will be no use of the crusher on Saturday and will only operate from 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM on Monday through Friday. Mr. Poirier indicated that there will also be no increase in truck traffic in the area of the operation, and there will be no use of a hydraulic hammer.
Mr. Beaudoin explained the proposed topography on the slide presentation. Mr. Beaudoin explained the area that is being reseeded and reclaimed. Mr. Beaudoin explained that the proposed project is on a “rather large knob” and the bottom elevation is roughly 520’ above sea level and the top is approximately 600’ above sea level. Mr. Beaudoin explained that Sanborn Head performed a soil evaluation in 2008 to determine if the material was suitable for extraction. Mr. Beaudoin explained the areas that the borings were performed and explained the ground water elevation, which is required by the State of Vermont. The State requires a minimum of a 3’ separation for the groundwater separation, and the permit is proposing a minimum of 5’ separation.
Mr. Beaudoin indicated that Casella Construction is sensitive to the concerns of the visual and noise impacts that the public may have and is proposing a 4’ high berms on the north and south side of the access, visual buffers, and the electrical to be below grade. Mr. Beaudoin explained that the berms will be constructed to maintain the minimal set-back requirements from the Furnace Road.
Mr. Beaudoin explained that the extraction will occur in 5 stages. The proposal includes that the screener and crusher will be as far away from the abutters as possible. The extraction timeline was explained. Mr. Beaudoin explained the project as being a “large bowl” and indicated the elevations as being 40’ minimum depth at stage 5 and a majority of the extraction area has 60’ elevation change. The anticipation is that the noise and visual impacts will be lessened. The tree line will remain intact.
Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the stages range in area from 2 acres to 4.5 acres and a volume of 193,000 cubic yards to 415,000 cubic yards.
R. Conway inquired if there were any dust control measures in place. Mr. Beaudoin explained that the dust is taken care of with a water truck and calcium chloride and advised that if anyone sees a dust cloud, they should contact Casella Construction and the issue will be resolved immediately. Mr. Beaudoin explained that the water would be pumped from the Haskins Brook, which has been approved by the State of Vermont.
Mr. Beaudoin explained that the plans presented were ‘Exhibit A’. Mr. Beaudoin explained the differences between the paper presentation and the visual slide presentation.
R. Conway inquired the plans for reclamation of the proposed project. Mr. Beaudoin explained that each section would be reclaimed upon completion of the section. Mr. Poirier indicated that Casella Construction would be in agreement if it was included in the permit conditions that the next stage could not begin until the previous stage was completely reclaimed.
R. Conway inquired if there was anything in the proposal regarding slopes. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the finished grade slopes would be 2:1 and the slopes would be at a 3:1 until the segment is finished with a base of 2% to 3% on the base.
J. Morale indicated that stamped drawings would be required by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Poirier agreed to this request.
J. Morale inquired how Casella Construction learned that they were in violation. Mr. Steadman explained that he received a call from Kelley Lyons to advise of the expiration date. Mr. Steadman apologized and advised that the date of the call was the last day of gravel extraction. Mr. Steadman indicated that he contacted Atty. Ryan, as well as Bill Burke, who is the Act 250 District Coordinator to advise of the violation. Mr. Steadman indicated that he spoke with the Town Manager (John Haverstock) to disclose the violation. R. Conway inquired if there were any violations imposed by the Town or the State. A. Loomis indicated that there were no violations by the Town, however, there was documentation that there were violations by the State of Vermont. Mr. Steadman indicated that the State of Vermont was invited to the pit for review.
J. Morale inquired if there have been any complaints received by the neighbors. A. Loomis indicated that there were no complaints filed until September.
A. Loomis inquired if there was a bond in place. Mr. Steadman indicated that there is a current bond of $100,000 in place, which is intended to be in place until the reclamation is complete. Mr. Steadman indicated that there will be a bond for $100,000 in place for the new pit. R. Conway asked if the bond was a condition in the Town Zoning Permit that was originally held by Mr. Rowe. A. Loomis verified that this was requested by the Town. Mr. Poirier explained that the State Act 250 conceited to the Town bond being in place and did not require an additional bond be placed. Mr. Poirier indicated that this situation would be requested for the proposed Act 250 permit.
A. Loomis inquired the number of employees at the proposed site. Mr. Steadman indicated that there would be one full-time employee and a maximum of 4, however, this number is activity dependent. Mr. Steadman indicated that this is not a change from the current number of employees.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tom Carrara inquired if the berm would remain. Mr. Poirier indicated that there would be no chance of access. Mr. Carrara inquired if Mr. Rowe could remove the berm in the event that he wished to develop the area. Mr. Steadman indicated that that would not be included in the permit that is currently being proposed. Mr. Carrara inquired if there were 150 trucks allowed per day on a 10 hour day. Mr. Poirier explained that the proposal is for 75 loads per day. Mr. Poirier explained the difference between loads and trips.
Kim Lyon-Pratt asked for clarification of trips allowed. Mr. Petit explained that the original permit allowed for 75 loads per day, which will not change.
Lawrence Marzec-Gerrior read an e-mail and other documents that were received from Amy Loomis dated April 12, 2011 from Brian Beaudoin explaining the trips per day containing 40,000 cubic yards per month being removed from the permit. Mr. Marzec-Gerrior expressed concern of the trucks down shifting and the noise of the vehicles on the corner. Mr. Petit explained that this will be only 75 round-trips per day. Mr. Petit explained that the original permit was appealed to the Environmental Court and the truck trips were discussed in mediation. Mr. Marzec-Gerrior inquired the original permit submission. Mr. Steadman indicated that this was in 2000. Mr. Marzec-Gerrior inquired if the size of the trucks has increased in size since the beginning of the permit and inquired why the vehicles are not exiting the other way. Mr. Steadman indicated that the size of the truck has increased. Mr. Steadman indicated that Casella Construction is open to any suggestions or recommendations that are from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Steadman indicated that the extraction is a function of the economy and the truck traffic has been down due to the slump in the economy, however, if there are projects in and around town, the truck traffic will increase to the allowed limit. Mr. Poirier indicated that the original permit does not allow for a turn to the other direction upon exiting the location.
Mary Marzec-Gerrior inquired if the application was signed by the State of Vermont. A. Loomis explained that the permit that is on file has a signature. Ms. Marzec-Gerrior inquired if the permit was a Conditional Use because the property is zoned Rural and explained that this was not a permanent use. R. Conway explained that that point would be reviewed by the Board.
Ms. Marzec-Gerrior asked for clarification of the original permit and the “disturbed” property that was indicated on the slide. Mr. Beaudoin explained that Mr. Rowe contacted the State of Vermont and did the work in this area for “agricultural” purposes and indicated that Casella Construction had no connection with the work that was performed in this area, however, the area in question will be part of the proposed permit.
Ms. Marzec-Gerrior inquired if the reclamation of the area has begun. Mr. Steadman indicated that the reclamation on the east end needs to be completed by June 17, 2011, to include seeding, mulching, and the length of growth needs to be approved by the town. Mr. Steadman indicated that there will be no trees disturbed in the reclamation. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the same situation is proposed in the proposed permit, as far as the reclamation process.
Ms. Marzec-Gerrior indicated that the noise is also a concern. R. Conway indicated that the Board would take the noise level into consideration as part of the conditions.
R. Conway inquired the names that were relayed in correspondences from the State of Vermont. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the Commissioner of Buildings and Services from the State of Vermont is Michael J. Obechowski. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that his firm has had contact and dealings with Allen Palmer, also affiliated with the State of Vermont with regard to this project. R. Conway inquired if Casella would be purchasing the material from the State of Vermont through a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Mr. Steadman indicated that there is a lease agreement, based on the number of yards of material that is extracted from the site, and will be enforced and is subject to permit approvals.
Cornelia Crocker expressed concern that the environmental concerns are not being addressed. R. Conway indicated that these concerns will be addressed under the Zoning requirements.
Kim Lyon-Pratt asked for clarification with regard to the lower segment of the aerial slide and discussed the lines that were drawn and explained to segregate the State of Vermont property.
Ms. Lyon-Pratt expressed concern of the property at the southern border, which the State owns, which was near the Tuberculosis Sanatorium septic, which was capped off for the old hospital cest pool was located. This was capped off when the Academy was built. Ms. Lyon-Pratt indicated that the entire area, on a steep incline, is a leach field and expressed soil concerns of toxic materials in the soil.
Mr. Beaudoin indicted that the proposed boundary is located “upslope” and the ground water would be flowing southeast. There was discussion of the area and the “downslopes” in the area. Mr. Beaudoin explained the topography as indicated on the slides. Mr. Carrara indicated that the water flows to the swamp, which is located behind his house. R. Conway inquired if the water increased during the pit operation. Mr. Carrara indicated that this is a natural swail area and not much from the pit operations.
Allen Hitchcock indicated that he is present not as a Select Board member. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that there had been earlier complaints concerning the gravel pit, which occurred a number of years ago. The complaint indicated that there was an additional excavation that occurred below the water level and the area was filled back in to the grade. R. Conway inquired if this was with Casella. Mr. Poirier indicated that it is his belief that this was not an issue with Casella.
Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the map indicates that the new segment was approximately 9.7 acres and the original permit was approximately 10 acres. Mr. Hitchcock inquired if there was a total of approximately 20 acres involved in the pit operation. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that Roger and Erma Rowe had made an agreement with the Pittsford Community Corporation before the original permit was granted, which 59 acres of the Rowe property was granted a conservation easement to the Land Trust. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the agreement prohibited the mining of gravel, in addition to other restrictions. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the original 59 acres would not be achieved from the total of the 71 acres. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that he is not aware of the current status of the agreement. R. Conway indicated that some of the land involved is included in the State of Vermont property. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that there is 9.7 acres involved. R. Conway asked Mr. Hitchcock to submit the agreement as evidence. This was not submitted at the time of the meeting.
Mr. Hitchcock inquired if the agreement between Casella and the State would be made public. Atty. Ryan indicated that currently, the document is not a public document and is to remain confidential. Atty. Ryan indicated that the agreement is a Confidentiality Agreement and believes that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction over the document. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that to his knowledge, there is no mention of confidentiality in the agreement. Atty. Ryan indicated that if this was conveyed, the Town records would reflect the agreement. R. Conway indicated that this topic would be taken under consideration and the Board would refer this topic to legal council.
C. Greeno inquired if part of the proposed project will be overlapping the old project. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the scale house area will overlap the older project. Mr. Beaudoin explained the area on the slide presentation of the overlap segment. Mr. Beaudoin will provide the area of overlap.
Kelley Lyon expressed environmental issues and concerns.
Glenn Spaulding indicated that Casella has been a good neighbor and done a good job.
Atty. Gary Kupferer, representing Anita Lyon, Kelley Lyon, Scott McVey, Kathy McVey, and Kim Lyon-Pratt indicated that his clients object to the project. Atty. Kupferer inquired if any of the area is in the flood plain. Mr. Poirier indicated that there is none of the project in the flood plain.
Atty. Kupferer inquired of Amy Loomis if the area is all Rural or if there is a crossover of the zoning districts. A. Loomis indicated that this area is entirely rural.
Atty. Kupferer indicated that the lease should be an open document and thought it was important for the Board to have a copy to review.
Atty. Kupferer inquired what material would be extracted from the pit. Mr. Poirier indicated that there would be sand, gravel, and small rock extracted from the pit. Atty. Kupferer inquired the purpose of the use of a hydraulic hammer. Mr. Poirier explained that the rock would be extracted through the use of a crusher. The rocks would be loaded into dump trucks with a bucket loader. There was explanation of the process of removal of the rocks using the bucket loader and there would be no blasting as this material is not bedrock. R. Conway inquired if the crusher would be the same as in the past, which was moved from the site. Mr. Poirier explained that the crusher would be utilized as it has been over the last 10 years at the same noise level of approximately 70 dba at the property line, with no known violations. Mr. Poirier explained that there has been noise monitoring at the site, which has resulted in a dba level of less than 70 dba. Mr. Poirier indicated that Audiology Associates has been consulted and will be submitting a noise model.
Atty. Kupferer inquired if there would be any disturbance of the trees that are currently at the site. Mr. Poirier indicated that there will be “mixed vegetation” at the site.
Motion by J. Mitchell and seconded by W. Mitchell to enter into Deliberative Session for review of the application as presented.
Scott McVey inquired if the location of the crusher would be closer to the abutters than previously placed. Mr. Beaudoin explained that the crusher would be closer on the southern end, which is the State of Vermont property.
Mr. McVey indicated that there was flooding concerns when Mr. Rowe did his project. Mr. McVey indicted that the Lyon’s installed underground drainage, lost trees and wildlife.
CONDITIONAL USE DISCUSSION:
R. Conway asked if A. Loomis reviewed the permit as being in the Rural District, to which A. Loomis agreed.
R. Conway read the Conditional Use Section 501.
Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the only structure would be a scale house, using bottled water, a composting toilet, and sanitary towels. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the water truck would be using Haskins Brook for the filling of the water truck.
Mr. Beaudoin indicated that the structure would be 10’ X 20’ X 10’ high. The scale dimensions are 60’ X 10’. There will be 2 rooms to house the scale computer and washroom. The structure would be constructed from 2 X 6 lumber with T-111 siding, asphalt shingles, windows and doors, built on cinderblocks. R. Conway inquired the pitch of the roof. Mr. Poirier indicated that the pitch would be a 5-12 pitch and the height would be 12 ½’ at the peak. Mr. Steadman indicated that the color would be of a natural tone.
R. Conway inquired the visibility from the adjoining properties. Mr. Poirier indicated that the structure would be located at the base of the bowl, therefore, not believed to be visible.
R. Conway inquired character of the area affected as defined by the Zoning District as stated. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that it is the belief that the project meets the criteria. R. Conway inquired the age of the gravel pit. Mr. Beaudoin indicated that 30 years is the believed age of the gravel pit.
J. Morale inquired if the 30 year permit had expired. Mr. Poirier indicated that the permit has expired.
R. Conway inquired if there was a bond in place, which would remain in place through the reclamation process, to be completed before June 17, 2011. Mr. Poirier indicated that the bond will remain in place after June 17, 2011, until the Town agrees to the reclamation process.
R. Conway inquired the amount of traffic that will be in the area. Mr. Poirier indicated that there would be a maximum of 75 loads per day. J. Morale inquired if there were any restrictions on type of vehicles, e.g. size of trucks. Mr. Poirier indicated that there are no restrictions. Mr. Steadman indicated that the majority of the vehicles would be dump trucks. J. Morale inquired the capacity of the truck. Mr. Steadman explained that Casella trucks have a 20-ton capacity on a tri-axle, which is in compliance with the town weight limits.
BY-LAWS/ORDINANCES IN EFFECT:
R. Conway inquired the following, to which Mr. Beaudoin replied:
- Distances to the nearest property line. The closest is 75’ to the closest property line – both the State owned land and the land owned by Roger and Erma Rowe. The buffer will not be disturbed.
- On-site sewer. There will be no on-site sewer. A composting toilet will be used.
- School impact. None.
- Municipal impact to place unreasonable burden to provide fire, police, etc. None.
- Undo or adverse effect of the area of the neighborhood. None.
- Increase loads per day. No increase, per Mr. Steadman as most days the maximum is not met.
- Use of renewable energy resources. None.
- Site Plan approval in place from the Planning Commission. None.
Tom Carrara indicated that there were tractor trailers at the pit last fall.
Mr. Carrara inquired if there would be any topsoil used on the banks with the mulch because the banks were at a 60 degree angle and would like to see spruce or pine planted. R. Conway inquired if there were any trees in the reclamation plans. Mr. Poirier indicated that there are no trees proposed and that the banks are currently being lowered. Mr. Poirier indicated that the USDA recommended not using topsoil and that grass will grow in the sand, if it is the right grass. The USDA recommends not using topsoil on a bank as it will wash away. J. Morale inquired if the current permit required no topsoil. Mr. Poirier indicated that there was no topsoil proposed in the existing permit.
Mr. Carrara inquired if the loads would be covered. Mr. Steadman indicated that the Casella trucks have tarps, however, the smaller trucks do not have tarps. Mr. Steadman indicated that this was a request made at the last permit process. Mr. Steadman indicated that Casella can not force a hauler to cover a load.
Mr. Carrara recommended that the speed limit be lowered to 25 in the area of the pit to protect the younger children and residents of the area.
Mr. Carrara inquired why the entrance is not between the Davenport and Carrara properties. Mr. Poirier indicated that there are topography issues.
Lawrence Marzec-Gerrior agreed with Mr. Carrara’s concern of lowering the speed limit.
Mr. Marzec-Gerrior inquired if there was a 75’ buffer proposed in the new proposal or in the previous permit. Mr. Poirier indicated that this was in the new proposal. Mr. Poirier agreed to reclaiming the area and maintaining the 75’ buffer.
Mr. Marzec-Gerrior inquired if the 75 loads per day would be cut in half for Saturday or zero on a Saturday. Mr. Steadman indicated that Saturday is a busy time for the smaller contractors.
Keith Maseroni expressed that the road weight limits are posted at Route 7 and has been in contact with Shawn Erickson, Highway Foreman. Mr. Maseroni inquired how the pit operators are allowed to travel the road when the posted signs are in place. Mr. Steadman indicated that there is no travel when the road is posted, however, has made arrangements with Shawn Erickson to have a limited travel time, frost level dependent. R. Conway deferred this topic to the Select Board.
C. Greeno inquired if there was a way of the drivers not using the engine brake on the Furnace Road. Mr. Steadman indicated that he can make it a rule while on the property and can enforce it with the Casella drivers. Mr. Steadman indicated that a sign can be placed on the pit property to discourage other contractors of using the engine brake. R. Conway deferred the topic to the Attorney for the regulation of speed and engine brakes. The topic of speed and engine brakes will also be deferred to the Select Board.
J. Morale inquired what the percentage of the trucks are Casella. Mr. Steadman indicated that the average is 50/50 (Casella to smaller contractors)
Kim Lyon-Pratt indicated that the Furnace Road is a rural and residential community. Ms. Lyon-Pratt indicated that there is not much on the Furnace Road that is commercial. Ms. Lyon-Pratt indicated that the gravel pit does not fit the scope of the neighborhood and that the community used to be able to share stories of the wildlife that used to be present in the neighborhood, which is lost when the gravel pit is in operation. Ms. Lyon feels that they should have their neighborhood back.
Anita Lyon indicated that she has lived in the area for a while and misses the peace and quiet that was originally enjoyed. Mrs. Lyon indicated that she would rather not have the gravel pit around.
Kelley Lyon agreed that she enjoyed the peace and quiet that is now gone and misses the trees and forest hardwoods in the area. Ms. Lyon expressed concerns over the safety of the soil in the area of the proposed project and their property. Ms. Lyon indicated that there is a lot of noise and dust created by the crushers and the house “shakes” when the trucks go by from the pit.
Atty. Gary Kupferer indicated that the area is a residential neighborhood and the only commercial activity is the gravel pit.
Atty. Kupferer indicated that he spoke with Bill Burke and there are no permits in place currently and the current proposal is being treated as a new permit application.
Atty. Kupferer indicated that he has reviewed the Pittsford Zoning Ordinance and there is no indication that a crusher is allowed and this is a huge concern to his clients. Atty. Kupferer indicated that his clients have not been able to keep the windows clean and that since the pit stopped operation, the neighborhood is like it was in previously.
Mary Marzec-Gerrior inquired the elevation of the test wells for the soil borings. Mr. Beaudoin explained the elevation and location that was utilized for these borings. Mr. Beaudoin explained that the elevations varied, dependent on the groundwater, roughly 100’ higher, on a knob. The soil borings were conducted to also determine the utilization of the soil.
Ms. Marzec-Gerrior inquired if there would be a buffer along the excavation area. Mr. Steadman indicated that there would be trees planted upon approval of the permit.
Ms. Marzec-Gerrior inquired if there were other areas that Casella could obtain gravel. Mr. Steadman indicated that there is no other area in Rutland County and the closest area would be in Windsor.
Ms. Marzec-Gerrior indicated that the neighbors should be compensated, as they are taxpayers and Casella’s is making a profit, and the neighbors deserve some peaceful enjoyment of their property.
Ms. Marzec-Gerrior recommended that the Board reject the application, however, if the permit is approved, consider steep conditions as this is not a permanent gravel pit.
R. Conway explained that the Board decision and conditions will be determined based on the Zoning Ordinances.
R. Conway indicated that the Board has listened to a lot of concerns.
R. Conway concluded the Public portion of the meeting and recommended that the Board enter into Executive Session for deliberations.
Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Morale to enter into Deliberative Session at 9:04 PM. Motion passed.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment entered into Deliberative Session at 9:04 PM.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment exited Deliberative Session at 9:55 PM.
Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Shedd to recess the deliberations until June 14, 2011, at which time the Zoning Board of Adjustment will meet in closed deliberative session. Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:56 PM.
Respectfully Submitted
Kelly Giard, Recording Secretary
___________________RECUSED_____
Stanley Markowski, Chair
_________________________________
Richard Conway, Vice Chair
_________________________________
James Morale
_________________________________
Clarence Greeno
_________________________________
Jack Orvis
ABSENT____
John Shedd
____________________ABSENT_____
John Mitchell (Alternate)