Conservaiton Commission

Minutes

April 7, 2009

Official as of June 9, 2009

Chairman Steve Roy calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Present: Chairman Steve Roy, Vice Chairman Steve Hampl, Jim Ryan, Wini Young, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver. Paul Lussier arrives at 7:04 p.m., Loren O’Neil arrives at 7:25 p.m., and Mike Matson arrives at 7:47 p.m.

Minutes
Mr. Roy motions to postpone the minutes to the end of the meeting. Mr. Hampl seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Appointments
Robert Correa, Eagle Scout Project                                               
Robert Correa is present along with Alec Correa. Mr. Robert Correa explains that he is working on his Eagle Scout project. He explains that the project is to replace a culvert pipe and add a walking path to the property across the street from St. Josephs Catholic Church. Mr. Robert Correa states that he is currently working on the forms for NHDES and has not run into any problems. He reviews the packet provided and notes that some forms have been approved by NHDOT and NHDES to date.

Mr. Roy states that there is an existing drainage system that drains the intersection of Bow Lake Rd. He adds that there is probably a NHDOT design when it was put into place. He adds that there is some wetland habitat in the area and a bridge and culvert installation would probably require a minimum impact permit. Mr. Alec Correa states that he has met with Vanessa Burns of NHDES who provided a trails form to fill out. The form is reviewed and additional discussion is held regarding a culvert pipe permit through NHDOT. Mr. Alec Correa explains that there is a right of way easement for drainage off Rte. 4 that comes through the property. 

Robert Correa explains that the trail is on high ground. The parking area is being worked on and there will be a gradual slope down to the crossing. There are steel plates currently in use and there is an existing bridge with no impact. There is a stone wall on the side going towards the lake and they will be 50 ft. away from the water. Alec Correa notes that there is a phase 2 with the gazebo area, which is another Eagle Scout project.

Mr. Roy asks if there have been any limitations with the lot. He notes that there was some discussion regarding additional access for the parking area; however, the town did not want anyone crossing Rte. 4. Robert and Alec Correa reply that this has not been addressed. Mr. Roy notes that when the approval was given for the parking lot, the planning board had discussed that no other activities were to occur on the parking lot area. He adds that when NHDOT rebuilt the intersection they placed conduit under the intersection for a signal light to run power in the event that a signal light is installed. Mr. Roy encourages the Correas to meet with Linda Smith regarding conditions made by the planning board.

Discussion ensues regarding the trail and sketches of the proposal are provided. Robert Correa states that the trail will be 3 inches excavated out, 3 ft. wide, 3 inches deep, and consist of stone dust. Mr. Roy notes that the Best Management Practices for Erosion Control will need to be followed. He asks if the sizing of the culvert will be approved by NHDOT. Alec Correa replies that they are proposing a 30” culvert.

Mr. Ryan states that since this is the church’s property, he asks if the church has agreed to maintain the property. Mr. Alec Correa replies yes.

Mr. Roy asks if Ms. Smith recalls discussions relative to the potential activities on the site and any limitations on the use of the parking area based on the fact that the planning board did not want people crossing Rte 4. Ms. Smith states that she is an abutter to the property and at the planning board meeting she expressed an objection to the concept of people crossing Rte. 4 and noted safety concerns. She refers to the tunnel added at Coe Brown to avoid pedestrian traffic crossing Rte. 4. She states that the pedestrian concern may not have any relation to this proposed activity. Mr. Roy states that this is outside the realm of conservation; however, it is important for the applicant to understand. Ms. Smith adds that she doesn’t recall the intent of the use of the area other than parking. She states that she will review the planning board minutes and provide to the applicant.
 
Mr. Roy states that the church owns the property and whatever occurs on the property the church is liable. 

Mr. Roy thanks Mr. Correa for coming in and no further discussion is held.

Applications
Minimum Impact Expedited Application: Nelson Sherman, 65 Sellar Rd.
Map 118; Lot 5.
Mr. Roy recuses himself for this discussion.

The board reviews the application and the checklist. 

Mr. Sherman is present and explains the area and proposal. He states that there is a 60’ right of way to allow him access to the lake. He adds that the property is owned by the Sellars. Deed copies are provided within the application and are reviewed noting that there are specific regulations regarding buildings allowed on the property. Mr. Sherman notes that the deed language allows for a bath house and a docking facility. Further discussion is held regarding the deed language and the existing structures. Ms. Smith cautions the commission members in determining deed language. She states that it is her understanding that DES would require the property owner to sign off regarding any construction that would be occurring on the property. Ms. O’Neil asks if this process has occurred. Mr. Sherman explains that when he spoke to DES and they relayed that the property owner will need to sign off on the project and Mr. Sherman explains that the Sellar’s did sign off by way of creating the deed. He states that DES was in agreement to that explanation and Ms. Smith requested that this be provided to the commission in writing.

Mr. Sherman explains that a Permit by Notification application could have been used; however, he spoke to DES and he was introduced to the minimum impact application as the proposal is for 8 ft., the original pre-existing design. He adds that the PBN is for a maximum of 7 ft. only and he would like to replace the dock in kind, 8 ft. Mr. Sherman adds that there is a court case on file regarding the bath house. He read some court records noting that he has been awarded approval for the projects. 

Mr. Hampl states that the commission’s review has determined that there are materials omitted that must be provided for the application to be complete. He states that there needs to be a construction sequence provided noting the statement of work, a list of materials proposed to be used, as well as a list of siltation controls that will be put in place.

Mr. Hampl states that the commission has some concerns with possible dredging that will occur due to the proposed poured pad. Mr. Sherman states that the excavation will be out of the jurisdiction of the shoreland. Mr. Hampl states that this needs to be clarified as there are some discrepancies throughout the application.
 
Mr. Sherman states that the proposal is to remove the existing wood stairs and to construct an anchor pad underneath this. These stairs currently sit on top of rocks and a ledge area and there is no existing pad. He refers to the pictures provided in the application. He states that he would like to build the anchor pad and put the stairs on top, all being the same width as the existing stairs. Mr. Sherman adds that the stairs will be hinged and the dock will be tied to the hinge, which is tied to the concrete anchor pad, that is reinforced with steel; weight of approximately 7-9 tons.

Mr. Ryan asks what kinds of footings are proposed to make sure that this pad will not sink. Mr. Sherman explains that his intention is that this be all one piece. Additional discussion is held regarding seepage. Mr. Sherman states that this will not be below the water. Mr. Ryan states that the figures should be noted and be more accurate to the specific dimensions and this should also be included as part of the work schedule.

Mr. Matson asks if Pleasant Lake is a designated prime wetland. After discussion, it is determined that this is not a prime wetland as the lakes are owned by the state.

Additional discussion is held regarding the distance of the proposed activity to abutters. Mr. Hampl states that this distance must be provided on the plan and the names of the abutters must also be added to the plan.

Mr. Hampl states that the dock is 14 ft. too long. Mr. Sherman states that the dock is 48’ and he is not proposing any work to the dock and it is pre-existing. Mr. Hampl asks for a copy of the old permit for the dock. It is noted in the application that the regulations state that a seasonal dock is allowed to be 30’. Additional discussion is held regarding the steps and measurements of the dock and Mr. Sherman refers to the NHDES letter referencing a site visit. He states that DES held a site walk and did measure the dock. He adds that the entire dock is 45’ with one 4’ x 10’ section on the south side, which includes one step. He adds that the dock has been there for 30+ years. He explains that the 7’ wide steps would only require a PBN application; however, the intent is to replace the steps in kind as 8’. He adds that when he spoke to DES all other requirements for the PBN application would have been met other than the size of the steps. Mr. Hampl states that this information appears to be valid; however, the commission will look into this further. Mr. Sherman states that the dock is pre 1994. The commission requests that this information be made clearer and if the dock can in fact be this size. Mr. Hampl also notes that the form requests that the original permits be provided. Mr. Sherman will check into this. 

Mr. Hampl states that the commission is concerned with the validity of application as Mr. Sherman is not the land owner. Mr. Sherman states that the property owners and he went to court regarding the bath house with similar issues whether he has the right to do anything to the property. He read the judges decision into the record and a copy will be provided to the commission. Ms. Smith states that DES will need that document to determine approval.

Mr. Hampl refers to the lake or pond status. Discussion is held regarding the activity being done if it is within the lake. The final agreement is that the categories “lake” and “other” should be checked as the property is adjacent to the upland.

Mr. Matson expresses concern with the fact that the name of the owner is not noted and should be as such, as Mr. Sherman only owns a 60’ right of way.
Discussion ensues regarding turbidity control. Mr. Sherman states that he is unsure as to how to address the dredging aspect on the application. Ms. Young refers to the pictures provided and states that it does not seem to be consistent as it shows activity occurring in the water if the water is at the end of the steps. 

Mr. Sherman states that he will make the necessary changes.

Property owner and abutter John Sellar representing Sellar Trust is present. He explains that he is the land owner and this is only an easement, a right of way to the lake. He explains that he just received the information today and is not prepared to speak about it. He adds that he feels that the cart has been put before the horse today. He states that there is a dock existing and there was never any intentions to have anything built for lifting up from the water.  

Mr. Stellar states that they have been to court and he refers to the portion read by Mr. Sherman as being only a short slip of what has occurred. He also provides an overview of the court details and explains that the bath house was misinterpreted and was supposed to be built as a changing area; however, was built with three glass siding doors, heating, electricity, and he feels it was built as a cottage. He adds that there is now a court ruling that this is to be a changing area only; however, stands as built.

Mr. Sellar states that he feels the commission did a great job tonight and appreciates what the commission has done. He requests that the issue be tabled for further research. He adds that there is a leach bed and septic tank in the rear of the property with pipes from the bath house up to the area. He adds that they also own this property that the system is built on. He states that a dock would be fine along with the path to the lake; however, a concrete pad on our land is a problem and he expresses concern with the fact that there will be dredging involved. 

Ms. O’Neil states that the conservation commission’s function is to make sure that the documentation is filled out to the best of the ability possible. She adds that the commission is only an advisory board to help and assist is all that the commission can do and the commission is not able to make any final judgments. Mr. Sellar states that he came to this meeting to defend his property and prevent any more destruction. He explains that the water shed has changed over the years. He states that he is the owner of the land and received notification that something will be built on the land. He adds that he is tired of fighting the issues and feels that this area is a peaceful place and would like it to remain as such.

Mr. Sherman asks if there is a time frame to have the additional information back to the committee. Mr. Sellar requests to be kept informed of when the application will be discussed again. Ms. Smith states that the commission regulations require that the information be submitted by the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting.

Mr. Roy returns to the meeting.

Special Reports
Lucas Pond - Woodman Park Study Committee
Mike Matson states that the next Woodman Park Study Committee meeting is
scheduled for April 15, at 7:00 p.m. He explains that a site walk will be held
April 14. Ben Dreyer and Jim Wilson will be working together regarding the
plan. Mr. Matson states that the committee will sunset after the April site
walk and meeting.

New Business
Lalish - Culvert Replacement
Linda Smith explains that she received a complaint from an abutter regarding the culvert and drainage in the area. She states that she has spoke with Laurie Lalish and also Jim Ryan who agreed to view the area. Ms. Smith states that there is a culvert that is in the road that the Lalishes put in with permission from the town. Ms. Lalish had indicated to Ms. Smith that some of the Lalish’s equipment has caused some damage and the culvert is now broken and needs to be replaced. Ms. Smith states that the Lalishs were going to have a contractor come and give a price for the repairs. Ms. Smith states that she thought that the culvert was installed by the town; however, that is not the case. Ms. Smith states that she has spoken to the town administrator and he is aware that the culvert needs to be replaced.

Mr. Ryan states that he spoke to Jim Wilson who stated that he needed an
okay from the town. Mr. Ryan states that he has visited the area and does not
feel that the commission needs to be involved at this time. He notes that he
believes that the plan is to increase the culvert by one size larger. Ms. O’Neil
asks if the town will need to get a permit and Ms. Smith will check on this. 

Loren O’Neil left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.

Northwood Area Land Management Collaborative (NALMC)
Mary-Alice Fisher, Outreach Coordinator for NALMC, is present to meet with the commission regarding the NALMC/Ed Burt Day celebration scheduled for July in the Northwood Meadows State Park. She explains that the program has been funded under a grant that NALMC received through the NH Charitable Foundation in conjunction with an ecological assessment.

Ms. Fisher states that she is present to discuss the July celebration and the events scheduled. She explains that this area provides resources, recreation,  and open space to the town. She states that there is ongoing research and as  part of the NALMC mission they are working to build awareness of the area for people to enjoy.

A discussion is held regarding the organizations, committees, etc., that have committed to participating in the Ed Burt Day Celebration as well as many of the planned events scheduled, including a race sponsored by the town’s recreation commission. Ms. Fisher states that there is a special use permit required and the state cannot cover the insurance. Mr. Roy asks to what extent does the town sponsor insurance to cover the events and what requirements are needed. Ms. Smith states that she has spoken to the finance administrator for an understanding of the insurance aspect. She states that the recreation department needs a rider for off site activities and there is no cost to the town as long as this is a town sponsored event.

Additional discussion is held regarding the process of sponsoring the event. Ms. Smith recalled the hike that the conservation commission sponsored years ago and it was a special day. Ms. Fisher notes that a hike would be a terrific event sponsored by the CC.

Mr. Roy states that he would support the idea of the conservation commission being involved as a commission financially. He adds that the town should be involved and have input. He suggests that the commission meet with the recreation commission to co-sponsor this day as a town conservation day. He adds that then the two entities can meet with the selectmen. Ms. Fisher states that the recreation department is planning and directing the race. Ms. Smith states that a meeting has been scheduled for April 14 with the recreation commission and the selectmen. Ms. Fisher states that she or Carl Wallman will plan to attend that meeting. In addition, she suggests that there be a Memorandum of Understanding created (MOU). Mr. Roy is receptive to the MOU.

Further discussion ensues regarding the conservation commission’s budget. Ms. Smith states that the selectmen have not finalized a budget due to cuts from town meeting. Advertising is mentioned and Mr. Roy suggests that the committee review the budget at the May meeting to see what support the commission can offer financially.   

Kelsey Mill Marker
Ms. Young states that she and some of her students cleared and opened up the Kelsey Mill area. Ms. Young states that a quote has been received and further discussion is postponed until the May meeting due to pending a final budget from the selectmen. 

Forest Management Plan
A discussion is held regarding the town’s proposed forest management plan. Mr. Roy states that the commission is scheduled to meet with the selectmen to introduce the BOS to the plan on April 14.

Mr. Roy states that the commission could introduce the selectmen to a scheduled item of cuts for every year and have a forester present a list of when the cuts will be done within that calendar year. He states that this would avoid a lag and keep the management plan on task.

A suggestion is made top have the company that created the plan present at the meeting. Discussion ensues regarding the bid process and if a request for proposal (RFP) should be done. Ms. Smith explains that she believes that an RFP has been completed and the selectmen picked a town forester. She adds that she feels that the town will probably want to review the RFP process. She adds that the contract with the company that completed the plan has been closed and the commission cannot expect the contractor to attend any meetings without being compensated. Mr. Roy states that the meetings are posted and open to the public. Mr. Ryan states that contractor could explain the plan and the forest conditions. Mr. Roy states that the plan should stand alone and explain itself. He adds that if it does not do that, then perhaps it is not complete.  

Mr. Roy notes that copies of the proposed forest cuts should be copied and provided to the selectmen. He adds that the revenue generations plans and valuation plans should also be copied.

Ms. Smith states that the NCC has total control over the town’s forests reltative to plans and timing. Mr. Roy states that his observation from the past is that the contracts are provided to the selectmen, signed by the BOS, and returned to the forester. Ms. Smith states that everything is generated from the NCC, only the contract was signed by the BOS. Mr. Roy asks if the NCC should be steering the process. Ms. Smith replies yes and the RFP process for a forester should be a joint effort with the selectmen, planning board, and conservation commission. Mr. Roy states that this should be addressed at the meeting with the selectmen.  

Planning Board Upcoming Meeting
Ms. Smith explains that there is a case coming before the planning board proposing an automobile mechanics garage near prime wetlands. She states that the planning board will be reviewing the case to determine if it is complete or not at tomorrow night’s meeting. She expresses concern that the NCC has a voice in the process relative to whether or not that the buffer should be shown on the plan and if a waiver is acceptable to this wetland.

Ms. Smith states that a letter has been received from a certified wetland scientist, which notes that based on the map provided, it appears that there is 100 ft. from the building line. Mr. Roy states that the town’s ordinances are very clear regarding buffers. He states that the buffers when established for a parcel, for determination of setback, need to be based on a field based survey and wetland flagging project by a certified wetlands scientist to properly define the prime wetlands. He states that granting a wavier does not follow the ordinances and does not allow the code enforcement officers to do their job. Ms. Young adds that this sets a precedence. Mr. Roy states that there is also state law, which requires a hearing to be scheduled.

Further discussion ensues regarding the site plan requirements for wetlands. Mr. Matson makes a motion for Steve Roy to represent the conservation commission at the planning board meeting. Jim Ryan seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Election of Officers
Vice Chair: Steve Roy nominates Steve Hampl as vice chairman. Jim Ryan seconds. Motion passes 6/0.

Chair: Steve Hampl nominates Steve Roy for chairman. Mike Matson seconds. The motion passes 6/0.

Correspondence
General correspondence is reviewed and no actions are required.

Adjournment
Mike Matson motions to adjourn. Jim Ryan seconds. Motion passes unanimously at 10:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary