Conservaiton Commission

Minutes

May 5, 2009

Official as of June 9, 2009

Chairman Steve Roy calls the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.

Present: Chairman Steve Roy, Jim Ryan, Wini Young, Loren O’Neil, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver. Mike Matson arrives at 7:47 p.m.

Absent: Vice Chairman Steve Hampl, and Paul Lussier

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

Appointments
Northwood Area Land Management Collaborative (NALMC)
Carl Wallman, NALMC, is present to meet with the commission regarding the NALMC/Ed Burt Day celebration scheduled for July 11, in the Northwood Meadows State Park. He explains that the event has been officially named Northwood Meadows Discovery Day.

Mr. Wallman states that he has been very pleased with the efforts that he has received from the town. He reviews expected participants as well as a proposed schedule of activities that will be ongoing throughout the day. He briefly explains that the recreation department will not be doing their road race; however, there will be a road race for children. 

Mr. Wallman states that he will continue to provide progress reports to the commission to keep them informed. Discussion is held regarding the conservation commission’s budget and if there would be any funding available to assist NALMC with this event. Mr. Wallman will have specific requests available for the commission at the next meeting. 

Correspondence has been received from Ann Brown regarding the trail area and the intention of the area. Mr. Roy motions for Wini Young to respond to Ms. Brown’s concerns and notes that although the town supports NALMC it is an independent entity. Jim Ryan seconds. Motion passes; 4/0.

Phil Auger, Bear Paw Regional Greenways – Anthony Properties
Mr. Auger of Bear Paw Regional Greenways is present to speak to the commission regarding land projects.

Non-Public Session
7:35 p.m. **Motion** Mr. Roy makes a motion, seconded by Mr. Ryan, to go into a non-public session under RSA 91-A:3,II(d).  
Roll Call Vote:
Steve Roy – yes
Jim Ryan – yes
Wini Young – yes
Loren O’Neil – yes
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mike Matson arrives at 7:50 p.m. during the non public session.

Mr. Roy makes a motion, second by Mr. Ryan, to come out of non-public session at 8:20 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Roy makes a motion, seconded by Mr. Matson, to seal the minutes of the non-public session. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Steve Roy makes a motion to appropriate up to $2,500. from the conservation land fund per RSA 36:4, for a land appraisal. Ms. O’Neil seconds.  Motion passes; 4/1. Mr. Ryan is opposed. Mr. Matson states that he is in favor of the proposal and sees the value in the land with the open space; however, he does not like the fact that the funds are being used with no return. Ms. Young adds that this will also protect the land.

Applications
Minimum Impact Expedited Application: Nelson Sherman, 65 Sellar Rd. Map 118; Lot 5.

Mr. and Mrs. Sherman are present as well as abutter Mr. Sellar. 

Mr. Roy appoints Jim Ryan to lead the discussion of the Sherman application as the vice chair is absent. Ms. O’Neil seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0/1. Mr. Roy recuses himself for this discussion.

Mr. Ryan explains that the conservation commission’s role is to review the application, documents, determine the accuracy of the application, and not necessarily the accuracy of fact. He states that the final approval is up to NHDES.

The board reviews the revised applications noting the following additional information:
• Pg. 4 - Item 8: This item has been checked as other, as was requested. Mr. Sherman explains that he is not working in the lake or the pond as noted on the plans and that all proposed work will be done during the draw down.
• Pg. 3 - Section 1: Mr. Sherman states that he has added Sellar Trust as the property owner to the application, as requested by the commission. In further review, Mr. Matson suggests removing the Sherman lots listed if no work is being proposed to be done to them.

• A work schedule has been provided.

• Pages have been numbered.

• A copy of a letter has been added to the application from Bourassa that provides an outline and timeline of the docks.

• A copy of the court judgment has been added.

• Additional wording regarding the right of way has been added.

• Plans have been revised to reflect the distance to abutters as well as the name of the plans designer, Dick Fisher.

A discussion is held regarding the footings. Mr. Sherman refers to map 88 and states that all work will be done by him. He explains that the plan shows the stairs currently sitting on the ground and the proposal is to have the footings 4 ft. below the ground. Additional discussion is held regarding the process of how the footings will be built. Mr. Sherman refers to page 37 and explains that all work will be done from the top of the bank and the machine will not be in the water. He will not be disturbing the lake bed and there will be a 3 ft. barrier of dirt between the lake and the grade of the area will remain. As far as safety provisions should the bank collapse, Mr. Sherman states that there are no safety provisions proposed at this time and he adds that he will have bales of hay along the shore for erosion control and will add silt fencing, if necessary. Any hydraulic leaks would be within the specified areas. Mr. Ryan adds that NHDES may require additional erosion protection measures.

A discussion is held regarding the comprehensive shoreland protection act, (CSPA). Mr. Sherman states that he has spoken to DES who recommended that he do a minimum impact application. He states that the CSPA does pertain; however, refers to page 36, which notes the specifications for the proposed anchor pad for a seasonal pier. Mr. Sherman states that he exceeds 7 ft. width by 1 ft. and explains that is because the existing stairs are 8 ft. and they must remain as existing. 

Mr. Sherman makes the one recommended change to remove the lots that will not have work done to them.
 
Recess at 9:12; back in session at 9:16 p.m.

Abutter John Sellar is present and expresses concern with the proposal. Mr. Sellar states that Mr. Sherman has created his own problem. He has purchased a larger boat and now needs to anchor it. He states that this is a self created hardship and should not be approved by the CC. Mr. Ryan explains that the commission only checks the accuracy of the application and DES is the agency that approves the application. Mr. Ryan recommends that Mr. Sellar contact NHDES regarding his comments and concerns.

Mr. Sellar states that Sellar Trust is the property owner, is opposed to the application, and has not signed the application. He adds that the Shermans only have permission to do what the Sellars originally permitted. He reviews court documents and states that the Shermans should not be allowed to expand this use as noted on page 52. Mr. Sellar adds that the permissive use is larger than the existing use and the Shermans are asking the conservation commission to sanction the use.

Mr. Ryan explains that the commission is to check the application to make sure it is complete and then forwarding to DES. He adds that the approval is not through the conservation commission and he suggests that the abutter forward all of his information to DES.
 
Loren O’Neil states that this is beyond the expertise of the commission. She states that the CC must review the application and information provided to be sure that the application is complete; however, there is an abutter and an applicant dispute and the legalities are beyond the jurisdiction of the commission.

A discussion is held regarding signing the application and sending a letter regarding the application or if that would be out of the realm of the commission. Ms. O’Neil feels a letter should be sent to DES as the commission has spent many hours reviewing and assisting the applicant with this application. Mr. Matson suggests a letter stating facts that this is a disputed issue between neighbors. Ms. O’Neil states that she is not comfortable signing the application.

Ms. Young notes that Mr. Fisher is signing as the authorized agent on the application. Ms. Smith states that there is some confusion as to who has signed the application and it appears that Mr. Fisher is the authorized agent, doing so by the owner’s request, which is not the case. Mr. Sherman states that Mr. Fisher prepared the application. Mr. Ryan asks if there is a letter from the owner to Mr. Fisher identifying him as the authorized agent. Mr. Sherman replies no. 

Ms. Smith explains that the conservation commission has the option to not sign the application and recommends that the CC forward the application to DES who will make a decision to process the application further. This keeps the town out of any litigation. Ms. Smith adds that the CC has been more than accommodating to the applicant to review the application, assist where necessary, and provided feedback and information as to how to complete the application.

Mike Matson makes a motion, second by Wini Young, for the conservation commission to not sign the minimum impact expedited application based on the fact that the CC has strong fundamental objections as to the ownership or agent of the property. Motion passes; 3/1. Mr. Ryan abstained.

Further discussion is held regarding sending a letter relative to the application. Mr. Ryan states that the CC cannot speak in behalf of the applicant or abutter as it would appear that the town is then an agent. He states that it is the duty of the CC to determine if the application is written accurately with regard to the content being included. Mr. Sherman refers to RSA 482 as noted in the application. Mr. Roy explains the conservation commission’s process of signing the application. He adds that should the commission sign the application and not agree with the proposal, then the town is not able to appeal. 

Loren O’Neil makes a motion, second by Mike Matson, for Jim Ryan to draft a letter as to the reason why the application was not signed by the Northwood Conservation Commission. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

A work session has been scheduled for May 12, at 7:00 p.m.

Loren O’Neil left at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Roy calls for a recess at 9:30; session resumes at 9:40 p.m.

Correspondence
General correspondence is reviewed and no actions are required.

June meeting has been changed to June 9, 7:00 p.m.

Other Business
Guptill Letter
A letter has been received from the Guptills. The letter is read into the record and the item will be further discussed June 9.

Forest Management Plan
Enabling information regarding the forest management plan and the wording granting the conservation commission the authority to manage the town’s forest is provided by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith adds that based on info she found she is not sure that the school lot is accurately displayed. She will further investigate and will speak to the assessor. She also adds that there are some delineations noted in the new plan that appear to be incorrect. She will further check into this and draft a memo for the next meeting. Steve Roy makes a motion, second by Jim Ryan, for Ms. Smith to develop a request for proposal for a town forester to be sent out by the end of May with a deadline of June 15, to be discussed July 7.

Special Reports
Woodman Park Study Committee 
Ms. Smith asks about the study committee. Mr. Matson provides an update of the committee. He states that a site walk has been done. He states that the committee is currently on hold. Mr. Matson explains that at the site walk Jim Wilson had noted that he does not feel that there is enough funds available for the project. Mr. Matson states that he has spoken to others who do not feel that way and adds that he also spoke to Ben Dreyer who explained that the plan was changed as the plan submitted is for the wetlands impact area only at the bottom of the boat launch. Mr. Matson states that $10,800. was received in funding for this project this year. He states that the committee has been  scheduled for abolishment and he now feels that the feedback for the project is not positive; therefore, the project will be put on hold even though there are funds available this year.

Mr. Roy explains that the permit has been obtained for a certain description of activity and the activity cannot be changed unless a new scope of work is completed. Mike Matson states that in speaking with Steve Bailey the wetlands will be completed next year and the erosion will be done this year. Mr. Matson states that he does not believe that was the goal of the committee and feels that the project should be done this year.

Ms. Smith explains that she was told by the former town administrator that the WPSC has completed its task and would need to sunset (cease to activity and close). She states that funds were encumbered from 2008 from the conservation commission; one for permitting and one for the study. Ms. Smith states that no costs can be incurred to the town at this time as the encumbered funds were through a contract that ended March 30 and no more funds are available. Mr. Matson explains that he spoke to Mr. Dreyer to make sure that there was a completed plan. Ms. Smith suggests that Mr. Matson attend a facilities committee meeting. She adds that the WPSC has completed their task and they have no further role at this time as the facilities committee is in charge of the funds. Mr. Matson states that he disagrees and expresses concern with the fact that the goals are not going to be met. He adds that it is very frustrating for the people who have attended the meetings and volunteered to get a job done when it appears that it doesn’t matter. 

Additional discussion is held regarding events that occurred at town meeting that appropriated funds for the Lucas Pond project and the amount that was approved for erosion control. Ms. Smith states that she will ask for a copy of town meeting minutes to determine the amount and wording of an amendment offered relative to surplus. She adds that the safety committee needs to be involved relative to this project. Mr. Matson states that the recreation committee has funded a porta potty for the Lucas Pond Beach area.

Ms. Young explains that Mr. Moore’s senior project has been completed and Mr. Matson adds that he did a great job. 

Adjournment
Steve Roy motions to adjourn. Jim Ryan seconds. Motion passes at 10:26 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary