The Mason Planning Board unanimously denied a request for a rehearing on its approval of a plan for sand and gravel excavation on Brookline Road.
The site of the sand pit is near Mason’s border with Brookline. The neighboring town requested the rehearing Sept. 25, saying the planning board hadn’t sufficiently addressed concerns raised by Brookline and property abutters.
Brookline argued that Mason erred in its approval in several ways, including that the excavation would be hazardous to the traveling public due to traffic and its volume and that the truck traffic would accelerate deterioration of Brookline Road. The town of Brookline also argued that the company planning the site, Massachusetts-based Onyx Corporation, hadn’t undergone a site plan approval, shown compliance with the site plan review regulations or shown the location of proposed wells on their plan.
Mason Planning Board Chair Dane Rota directly rebutted some of those points. The excavation regulation review conducted by the board is not only a site plan document that satisfies that requirement, he said, but is more comprehensive.
Regarding traffic concerns, Rota said the board had thoroughly listened to neighbors, conducted a third-party traffic study and limited trucking hours in its conditions of approval.
The board initially approved the plan, with a list of conditions, during its Sept. 16 meeting in a 4-1 vote, with Vice Chair Katie Boots casting the lone “nay” vote.
Some of Brookline’s points, such as a road bond to offset road damage, lay in the hands of the Select Board, Rota said.
The location of the wells, a last-minute change required by the board when it disallowed digging ponds to store water, is expected to be on the final approved plat and was a condition of approval.
“It may not have made everyone happy, but the board spent several months to thoroughly vet this application. That’s my opinion,” Rota said. “There’s no grounds to grant this rehearing.”
Rota asked the town’s planning consultant, Cassie Cashin of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission if there were any points that she saw as grounds for a rehearing. Cashin said the board had thoroughly reviewed the application and followed its governing regulations.
“I don’t think there’s anything else you could have pursued,” said Cashin.
Planning board member Chris Jones noted that the board had not yet seen the final updated plat and would have to ensure the wells’ location showed proper setbacks but agreed it was not grounds for a rehearing.
If the town of Brookline wishes to keep pursuing the rehearing, it would next file an appeal in the Superior Court within 30 days of the decision.
