Conservaiton Commission

Minutes

August 8, 2009

Official as of September 1, 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, Paul Lussier, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver. Loren O’Neil arrives at 7:35.

Absent: Mike Matson

Minutes
July 7, 2009
Page 4: Change: …analysis…to…system…
Page 4: Add: …/underflow…
Page 4: Delete: …and parking area.
Page 5: Change to state: … existing parking area is very poorly constructed.
Page 5: Delete: …due to the location…
Page 5: Change to state: … existing parking area is very poorly constructed.
Page 5: Change to state: …no existing berm next to the parking area.
Page 5: Delete: …and with the…and …that will be applied.
Page 5: Change: …perking… to …percolating…
Page 5: Change: …water… to …subsoil…
Page 5: Add: He states that the eastern most underdrain below the proposed athletic field has a direct discharge to the wetland area without going through the storm water treatment system and asks why this is.
Jim Ryan makes a motion, second by Paul Lussier, to approve the minutes of July 7, 2009, as amended. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

July 20, 2009
Jim Ryan makes a motion, second by Steve Roy, to approve the minutes of July 20, 2009, as written. Motion passes; 4/0/1.  Ms. Young abstains as she was not at this meeting.

Ms. Smith notes prior commission chairman Arthur Slade in the audience. The commission welcomes Mr. Slade to the meeting this evening.  

Public Input
Jim Hadley - Lamprey River Watershed Association.
Mr. Hadley is present as chairman of the Lamprey River Nomination Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Lamprey River Watershed Association. Mr. Hadley explains that in order for a river in New Hampshire to be nominated as a state protected river, there must be a process followed and a committee must be formed to work on this process, thus this committee was formed in July.

Mr. Hadley states that the committee plans to add up stream from Raymond to Northwood, the headwaters, to the watershed. He states that this is federally designated under the Wild and Scenic River. 24 miles is from Epping to Lee and Newmarket; however, the State Rivers Protection Program is only within Lee and Durham. Mr. Hadley states that they would also like to add some major tributaries as well.
 
Mr. Hadley states that the committee has applied to the Nation Park Service for a consultant at no cost. This process makes the town subject for grants and various activities. Federal funding is available for the current 24 miles of the river and if other areas of the river are federally designated then there will be additional federal funding available for further protection. Additional discussion is held regarding the benefits of designation of the river. Overall, the Lamprey River is a resource and the functional drive is to protect it.

Mr. Hadley will keep the conservation commission informed as to the progress of the Lamprey River Nomination Committee. General consensus of the commission is that they will be supportive with the LRWA and will look forward to communications from Mr. Hadley. 

APPOINTMENTS:
David Docko, Map 211; Lots 2, 14, 15, 16, 17; Map 217; Los 34 & 36.
Special Exception.

David Docko is present along with Peter Holden of Holden Engineering. Mr. Holden explains that they are present to provide an overview of a proposed rock excavation project. Mr. Holden explains that the use is not an allowed use within the conservation overlay district, there are wetland buffer impacts, as well as the need for variances for noise and vibrations beyond the boundary line; therefore, an application has been filed with the zoning board of adjustment. Mr. Holden adds that the planning board recently created an excavation permit application and checklist.

Mr. Holden explains that there is currently a work yard on Rte. 4 and an approval has been granted for expansion for retail sales of landscaping materials and storage of equipment in the back. He mentions that blasting will occur as the project expands and approvals have been obtained from the ZBA with conditions that the operations will only occur a few times per year and cease after 2013.

Mr. Holden explains that additional land has been purchased with 45’ of frontage on Rte. 4 that widens out beyond the power lines. Plans are provided of the entire layout of the proposal and are reviewed. The new proposal for this property is to begin a rock quarry, accessed by an existing logging road. He adds that some improvements will need to be made in time. They anticipate that some areas will need to be increased to 20-22 ft wide. He adds that they may also need to extend some culverts. He adds that there will be some wetland impacts but they are minimal. Mr. Holden states that the parcel totals about 125 acres and from Rte. 4 to the power lines is approximately 3,000 ft. He notes that the nearest buildings are further away than the buildings around the existing business.

Mr. Holden states that they have kept 100 ft. setbacks around all wetlands outside of this setback they will create large ponds as stormwater treatment areas. These ponds will not have an outlet into the wetland but will rely on infiltration, which has previously worked well on the site. He describes the ponds being made large enough so that if the top soil was removed and they used underlined till material they would be able to direct the water into it and the water would soak into the ground. This would make it so that there would not be any flow directly into the wetland.

Mr. Roy recalls much ledge at a previous site visit and is curious as to the infiltration rate for fractured bedrock. Mr. Holden replies that they have more soil investigation to complete. He adds that they may need to relocate somewhat once the soils work is completed but the idea was to have infiltration in two places where there was overburden. He further describes the proposed infiltration areas throughout the parcel. He states that as the excavation is completed they would begin reclaiming the bottom of the pit, put some overburden back so that the vegetation and woods would come back. He adds that once they have some overburden they may have some material for finished grading. There are no steep slopes. He states that there is no plan to build at this time; it is solely a rock quarry at this time. Mr. Roy asks if there currently is a reclamation plan in place; it will be part of the full excavation package and 155E permit. Mr. Holden replies yes and adds that this will be part of the planning board approval. He states that they will be meeting with the ZBA to address the need for approvals for the overlay district, noise and vibration levels, and buffer impacts. Mr. Roy notes that the water quality issues also need to be addressed. Mr. Holden continues that they will then plan to meet with the planning board; as part of the planning board process and approvals they will need to meet with NHDES for alteration of terrain permit for the property.

Mr. Holden states that they would accommodate the board for a possible site walk if desired.

Discussion ensues regarding the need for a special exception and Mr. Holden states that they will come back another time to address the wetlands crossings. He adds that they are required to present the ZBA with comments from the CC regarding the conservation overlay district. Mr. Roy states that the commission needs to address wetlands impacts and the fact that the project is within the conservation overlay district. He expresses concern with water quality, blasting residuals, and runoff. He states that he will plan to attend the planning board as to other issues.

Mr. Roy reviews the restrictions of the conservation overlay district. He states that any development must be residential and it must be a yield of one structure per four acres; the yield becomes half the amount, and any development must also be an open space subdivision. He asks if they are seeking relief from the residential use. Mr. Roy describes the conservation overlay district as an un-fragmented, non-developed area. He adds that with reclamation plan within 50- 75 years, ultimately the area will be an undeveloped lot, different topographically, but still an undeveloped wooded area. The approval will allow a commercial activity to occur; however, ultimately the outcome will be the same with no structures or infrastructures. Ms. Young asks if there will be any structures and Mr. Holden replies that there may be a shed type structure for the workers and possibly a porta-potty.  Mr. Docko states that the shed would be similar to what exists at the current yard. There would be no need for an office or shop as that would be on the lower property, the yard area along Rte. 4. Mr. Holden explains that the back area is solely to extract rock.

Mr. Hampl asks about storage of explosives. Mr. Holden explains that a blasting company is hired to drill holes and that company brings in all of the  explosives. They blow the rock up and then a crushing company is hired to crush the larger materials and then it is stock piled. 

Mr. Ryan asks about bonding for the project and prime wetlands. Mr. Roy replies that the planning board will address this throughout their application process. Mr. Holden states that there are no prime wetlands affected by this project.

Mr. Docko states that one lot was approved to be extracted last year from the conservation overlay district to allow for commercial activity. Ms. Smith states that a special exception was granted one year ago for Map 211; Lot 16 and adds that the special exception goes with property.

Mr. Ryan asks if there will be any impacts to aquifers in this area. Mr. Docko replies that it was determined that there is no known aquifer past the Northwood Ridge (to the west). Mr. Roy explains that the aquifer is ill defined. Mr. Roy explains his view point on the project relative to wetland features and drainage ponds as well as nitrogen levels being high in similar projects. He notes the fractured bedrock aquifer in the area and with proper management of materials on site it can be handled. Mr. Holden states that they can collect the stormwater and spray it out in the woods. He again notes that the stormwater has not been finalized.

Ms. Young asks how close the nearest home is and Mr. Holden replies it is 3,000’ to the transmission line. Mr. Docko adds that it is almost the center of Bow Lake Rd., Rte. 4, and Long Pond Rd.

Ms. Smith asks if they have considered merging the lots and Mr. Docko replies no as he does not want to sever his ability to sell the parcels separately if need be. Mr. Holden explains that they have considered doing a boundary line adjustment for additional frontage.

Ms. O’Neil asks if there would be any precedents being established to other commercial businesses in the overlay district by this project. Mr. Roy states that there would not be any precedents set with variances and states that the applicants are requesting a special exception. Mr. Docko states that the acreage is 119 and these lots may total 60 acres. Mr. Roy states that in the long term he sees what will be left out there to equate to the purpose of the overlay district. Mr. Holden states that there would not be any paving, no buildings, and everything will be restored to the same as it is with different topography. Ms. O’Neil asks if after the reclaim, the special exception can be removed. Mr. Holden explains that the special exception is specific to the needs of the area per their request. It will not allow for any buildings or changes without having to go back through the town application process. He states that the purpose is to keep the area as natural as it possible. 

Ms. Smith asks if there should be requests for two special exceptions, one for the wetland impacts to the roads and one for the conservation overlay district. Mr. Holden replies yes and Mr. Roy states that they are only appearing before the CC for the special exception relative to the overlay district. Mr. Holden states that the application submitted to the ZBA is for everything; 2 special exceptions and two variances. Mr. Holden states that he is seeking input from the CC relative to the quarry, the commercial activity within the overlay district. Mr. Holden states that they will come back to the CC for the wetland buffers and permits when the application has been submitted to NHDES for the permits.

Ms. Smith explains the process of meeting with the ZBA. She states that the ZBA does not want to issue conditional approvals based on the NHDES permit. Mr. Holden states that that aspect should probably not be addressed with the ZBA then until the permits have been submitted to DES. Ms. Smith asks if the permits have been filed and Mr. Holden replies no as they would like to obtain approvals for the use first. Mr. Holden states that they can just withdraw that portion of the ZBA application.

Mr. Lussier asks about the impacts to the wildlife in this area. Mr. Holden states that the activity will disrupt the wildlife during the blasting and stock piling. He adds that it is a large area and Mr. Docko will not occupy the entire area. They do not need the entire area and do not want to manage all of this land.

Mr. Lussier asks about the traffic entering the site, large equipment and if there will be large stock piles in the vicinity too. Mr. Holden explains that they will be making additional improvements to Rte. 4 for safety issues. Mr. Holden adds that they will add a fence along the property line and on top of the excavation. Additional discussion is held regarding the quarry and work in the quarry. Mr. Docko states that activity will be going on in one area at a time. Mr. Lussier asks about deep pits in the quarry and Mr. Holden delineates on the plan that there will be finished contours with grades into the water treatment area. 

Additional discussion ensues regarding the process of notifications to abutters for blasting. Ms. Smith reads the prior notice of decision of ZBA, which specifically requires that the code enforcement officer be notified prior to the blasting. Ms. Smith notes that the blasting company had indicated that they do abutters notifications. Mr. Holden adds that all activities are within the approval of the special exception and variances from the ZBA and a site plan approval from the planning board. He adds that Holden Engineering does do inspections and will send correspondence to the town.

Mr. Roy offers to attend the planning board meetings and adds that the planning board can require monitoring of the site and add conditions to their approval. 

Mr. Hampl asks if there will be any affects to the snowmobile trail system. Mr. Docko replies that the access will not be closed off.

Mr. Roy asks if there were any rare or endangered species indicated in the NH Heritage Bureau report. Mr. Holden indicates that nothing was found. Mr. Roy notes that the Blanding Turtle was identified at the Kelsey Mill Rd. crossing. 

A site walk is scheduled for August 10, at 6:00 p.m. followed by a work session, if necessary.

General consensus of the commission is that this is a reasonable request of the land and a modest project. Members express concern with the need to follow a reclaiming plan and there must be tight monitoring and a statement of work needs to be provided. Mr. Roy states that the statement of work is generally part of the planning board process. He adds that the NCC should continue to be a part of this project.

Ms. Smith states that the request should be a variance not a special exception. She states that the use change does not require comment from the NCC. Previous input was requested from the NCC by the zoning board chairman for another case. She notes that the commission may want to change the ordinance so that these changes do require comments form the NCC. Mr. Roy states that they will still do the site walk as scheduled, and comment to the ZBA. Ms. Smith agrees that the CC members should be a part of the zoning and planning process as the commission members have a focus that the other boards may not have.

Financial Reports
Conservation Commission Land Fund Update
Ms. Smith states that the current total in the land fund is as of July 31, 2009. $257,581.51. She adds that the 2008 funds will be added in soon.

Other Business
Letters of Land Inquiries (query)
This item will be addressed next month. 

Special Reports
Sharon Smith Purdy, Route 107 and Blaisdell Drive. Copies of an email sent to Mr. Roy are distributed and read. Mr. Roy explains that Ms. Purdy is considering some sort of a conservation gift to the town of this 6 acre parcel. Mr. Roy offers to contact Ms. Purdy to address the concept and will invite her to the next meeting. Motion for Steve Roy to contact Sharon Smith Purdy and set up a site walk is made by Jim Ryan and seconded by Steve Hampl. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Consideration of Applications
Standard Dredge & Fill: Elias Ververidis, 188 First NH Tpke. Map 231; Lot 35. Mr. Roy states that a site walk was done July 20, at 9:00 by Ms. Young, Mr. Ryan, and himself. Tom Varney and LuAnne Young, the representatives to Mr. Ververidis were also present. Members reviewed that area and the proposed access road was deemed to be a minimal impact and would be sufficient to access the well. Site walk ended at 9:30 a.m.

Standard Dredge & Fill: Coe Brown Northwood Academy, 907 First NH Tpke. Map 217; 65 & 66 and 218; 1. Revised applications have been provided by Mr. Aleva of Civil Consultants with the additional information requested by the commission at the July meeting. The commission agrees to have staff review to make sure that all information has been provided and the application is complete to forward on to the town clerk.

New Business
RFQ Recommendation for Town Forester
Mr. Roy states that the commission met July 20 and conducted interviews with Charlie Moreno, and Bean Hill represented by Robert Graves III. The commission supported Bean Hill as the town forester.

Loren O’Neil left at 9:20 p.m.

Discussion is held regarding the next step. Mr. Roy notes that the commission led the RFQ and interview process. He states that there may be some differences of opinions as to who addresses the schedule of cuts. Ms. Smith states that the commission held a meeting with the selectmen so that this process would be done jointly and the decision would be based on the decision from the interview process. Mr. Ryan notes that Alden Dill attended the interviews as a selectmen’s representative. Ms. Smith suggests that a letter be sent to the selectmen updating them that the commission has held the interviews and ask how they would like the NCC to proceed.

Discussion ensues as to the responsibilities of direction to the forester and lead agency and insuring as to how the forest management plan will be implemented. Mr. Roy notes that it was implied that when the selectmen were the contact point for cutting, the cutting did not occur. Ms. Smith states that the wording of the warrant article is very clear in that the authority was given to the conservation commission to oversee the process with the funds being applied to the general fund. She adds the selectmen cannot arbitrarily make cuts to the town’s forests; it is the conservation commission that has control of the town’s forests. Mr. Slade agrees. Steve Roy makes a motion, second by Jim Ryan, for staff to draft a memo to the selectmen, to be reviewed by Mr. Roy prior to sending. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Further discussion is held regarding the cuts and the selectmen as the fiduciary agents. Ms. Smith states that it is critical as to what time of the year the cuts can be done as there is a short time frame. Ms. Smith adds that there was some discussion held previously regarding cuts and revenues. She explains that there are other lots in town that are not part of the town’s forests. She does not believe that there have been any cuts in the town forests. She notes that there are records and revenue reports available as to when cuts were held in town to non town forest lots.

A meeting will be coordinated with the BOS to track forest cuts. 

9:35 p.m. Jim Ryan left.

Other
Intent to Cut
Mr. Roy notes a phone call he received regarding a cut on Rte. 202A. An intent to cut has been applied for; however, with additional discussion, Mr. Lussier states that there are two cuts going on and there is now a road that has been built showing fresh activity, with aggregate being hauled in, and with the possibility that there may be a wetland impact. Members will check into this. 

Complaint
North River Lake, Rochester Rd. Map 232; Lot 40.
Ms. Smith explains that she has received a complaint on North River Rd. The map of the area is reviewed and Ms. Smith states that the person that filed the complaint must travel over a right of way to access his house. She states that he noted that the culverts are gone and not being replaced by the homeowners. She explains the discussion she had and states that the map shows that this access road is on the parcel. Discussion is held as to the rights of access. Mr. Smith states that he has stated he has the right to cross via an easement. She told him that he could send his complaint to NHDES and she was not sure as to the outcome. She adds that he was concerned with the fact that the town was not willing to repair this culvert on a private right of way.

Mr. Roy explains the DES process of complaints with sending a letter to the property owner. The commission agrees to hold on to this complaint before sending along to NHDES until next months meeting. Steve Roy makes a motion, second by Steve Hampl, to hold onto this complaint until the September meeting. Motion passes unanimously; 4.0.

Correspondence
All correspondence is reviewed and no action is required. 

Adjournment
Ms. Young motions to adjourn, and Mr. Hampl seconds the motion at 10:00 p.m. Motion carries unanimously. 

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary