TOWN OF PELHAM, N.H.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING

MARCH 13, 2002

 

Members Present:                                                                 APPROVED 10/09/02

Robert Yarmo, Chairman

Sanjay Kakkad, Vice Chairman

Marc Duquette

Frank Culbert

Christian Montminy

 

Meeting called to order at 7:32 at the town hall with chairman Robert Yarmo presiding.

 

Statement of purpose of the Conservation Commission was given by Mr. Yarmo: “The Conservation Commission is to assure the proper utilization of the protection of the natural resources and protection of the watershed resources for the city or town, which in this case happens to be Pelham.  (Re: RSA Chapter 36-a of Land Use Regulations)”.

 

The town Boards could be more sensitive to the needs of the Planning Department and Conservation Department by giving them the tools to preserve and protect the environment like we should be doing says chairman Yarmo.

 

Map 6 & 13, lot 14-139, Collins Way a proposed 25 Single-Family House Lots

by K and D Development

 

Petitioners are looking to install a culvert where it impacts the wetlands off Valley Hill Road in the vicinity of the apple orchards.  It’s requested the developer give a brief run-down of what the drainage system is, to see where the water is going and what’s happening with the water.  Mike, of Gove Environmental Services (GES):  There is no street drainage and any street drainage will be diverted into catch basins and treatment swales outside the wetlands area.  Final drainage exits into a perennial stream and then into Mountain Orchards Wetlands.   GES representative reports that she conducted the EIA and the dredge and fill application.   Conservation members had not studied the request/plan as it had been submitted to the Planning Department and not forwarded on to the Conservation Commission.  Mr. Yarmo would like all future reports be submitted directly to the Conservation Commission and to let the chairman know by way of a fax that the reports have been submitted.  Inquiry was made as to where Jeremy Hill State Forests was.  It was explained as being on the southern end of the proposed site.  Mr. Yarmo questions whether any part of this plan is identified as a wild life corridor.  GES answered that a survey of this land area was conducted in 1998 between DES and the Conservation Commission, whoever they were at the time.  The data was mostly established from the landowners where the land had not been developed.  Also the food sources indicated the type of wildlife present in this area.  There is no specific wildlife study.  Chairman Yarmo questions statement number 8 of the 1998 survey that GES recommends, namely: “Cluster the development, leaving tracts of connecting undeveloped land that was voted down by the voters of the town of Pelham”.

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page 2

 

Chairman Yarmo feels that it would be premature for the Conservation Commission to act on the dredge and fill permit this evening; that there is a need to go on a site walk with the Planning Board.  Jim Gove of GES would like a consensus from Commission members if they feel the application qualifies for an expedited application.  Mr. Gove states that his firm submitted this as an expedited application and believes it qualifies for an expedited application, and that leaving this in the expedited route would benefit his client, having to do with timing.  There is concern about treatment swales vs. natural overland flow of the water that treats the water better says Mr. Yarmo.  Recommendation accepted to do a site walk with the Planning Board and to read over the environmental report that Gove will submit.  Upon receiving it, the Conservation will sign a minimum impact application.  Board members agreed. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:  None noted.

 

BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION:

 

Chairman Yarmo comments on some of the abutting developments having trail systems that lead to the state forest and would like to see the continuation of that trail through this development, i.e., around the wetlands, etc.  There is a large conservation easement on Benoit Avenue that lends to a perfect trail system says Mr. Yarmo.  Mr. Gove was aware of this fact.  Mr. Yarmo said he would make that recommendation to the Planning Board about continuing the trail system. 

 

Map 24, lot 12-44, Mulberry Estates, a Proposed Twenty-eight (28) Single Family Homes - Development by Mulberry Estates LLC

 

A site walk was done 2-3 months ago.  It is an extension of Shepard Road and Mulberry Road and has 2 wetland impacts.   Gove Environmental (GE) reports that they tried using three different ways in handling drains to disperse the water.  There are treatment swales and are mostly on the cul-de-sacs.  There are two dredge and fill locations.  Mr. Yarmo requests an explanation be made to the Conservation Commission as to what has the design team done to provide data and/or avoid minimum impact to the wetlands.  Mr. Gove requested that before he answers that that he explain the environmental impact assessment to give an overview of what the site has for habitat value then go into the actual discussion where the direct wetlands impacts are.  Mr. Yarmo responded with “This is another environmental report that we have not seen”.  It was again stated by GE that the reports had been sent to the Conservation Commission.  Mr. Yarmo again requested that in the future GE send a “fax” of the transmittal sheet to him announcing that the reports were sent to the Planning Board.  There are 2 rather large vernal pools, one small vernal pool and signs of habitat in this area.  Mr. Gove explained a vernal pool is a seasonal pool that supports certain species but will not support fish.  This site has remains of an old quarry that supports specific species.  Recommendations given by Gove include retaining the large oak trees, minimal clearing by the developer and

 

 

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page 3

 

possible restrictions placed in the deeds, Cape Cod curbing whereby the habitat can easily

cross over and a perfect place for cluster development.  Mr. Yarmo reminded everyone that the Town had voted against cluster development.  Mr. Gove says it’s recommended you have 300-foot wide buffers around vernal pools, and had it passed, this could have been accomplished without any detrimental impact to the applicant and his lot count.   This parcel is not just undergoing development but is being utilized as a connector; this is the first time that Spring Street is going to actually be connected through.  This will be a fairly active parcel with substantial traffic going through it.  One area has been set aside for a no-cut zone.  Gove asks that the Conservation Commission make the recommendation to the Planning Board of the 300-foot buffer based upon the scientific data.  Mr. Yarmo feels that it’s incumbent upon the developer to take the recommendations of the engineering firm, as they are the experts.  Mr. Gove says this particular parcel has 4 access points and what you have here is a parcel that will have crossroads.  Mr. Gove says Steve Haight has written a letter regarding the issue of why the roads are laid out in this fashion.  The Police Chief and fire department who want to make sure there is a 4-way intersection made the recommendation.  Mr. Gove says you can’t get a 4-way intersection without coming real close to the vernal pools.  This would mean doing a reverse curve, and you can’t do a reverse curve and trying to appease all parties you end up going through the buffer, even the 50-foot buffer.   Mr. Yarmo says that there are quite a few town parcels around this site, one of which is between the parcel being presented and onto Spring Street.  Mr. Gove says there’s a large population of wildlife habitat, but it’s going to become a crossroads.

 

PUBLIC INPUT:

 

Deb Waters, 6 Harley Road, abutter, asks if this particular subdivision came in under the new regulations or is it coming in under the old regulation.  The answer:  the new regulations.  She also asks if there was any effort made when studying the wetland area, to consider the area where the donation is on Stone Post Village where it’s believed they are doing an adjacent donation of land of a wetland area that is connected to this wetland area.  Answer:  It’s not interconnected.  Ms. Waters questions about the property not being adjacent to the Stone Post donation land.  Answer given that this property is adjacent, but because of the no cut, no disturb zone for the proposed Mulberry Estates II, it isn’t contiguous with the conservation easement land or the deeded land for Stone Post I.  Ms. Waters asked if there is an opportunity to do a connection even though you haven’t proposed it with that donation?  Mr. Gove:  That was brought up to the Planning Board, but we do not have that authority.  Ms. Waters stated that she understood, but speaking from an environmental point of view it makes sense to connect those two with a protected area.   Mr. Gove replied that there may be an opportunity from an environmental standpoint to expand some of the no cut zone but you still have that crossing; there are still two major arteries going through and trying to connect them is probably not going to happen.  Ms. Waters:  I was thinking of the wetlands area that’s adjacent to that donation.  Mr. Gove:  There may be a possibility to do something like

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page 4

 

that.   Ms. Waters:  Is there a quarry on that property?  Answer:  It looks like remnants of an old quarry.  It’s a small-excavated area with small pieces of granite.  There is an old quarry that exists off-site and has already been subdivided.  It’s rather a large old quarry that was excavated down to the water table.  The major quarry is actually off-site.  Ms. Waters requested a copy of the recommendations that have been made and suggests that being an abutter, she might be able to explore some of the recommendations from her own observations of the property.  Ms. Waters request that she be able to submit a letter for the file stating her concerns.  No objection.

 

Mr. Yarmo:  I’m over-whelmed by this.  We have this parcel, we’ve got Stone Post Village II, we’ve got another one, Shepard Estates, and there is another one coming up.  Mr. Gove:  I think the one you are talking about is Mr. Harris’s?  Mr. Yarmo:  There’s Mulberry Estates, Stone Post II, the Shepard property and the Harris property and are all surrounded by several town parcels, more than what has been indicated, such as the Coffee Lots.  A representative of GE pointed out the town parcels and indicated a spot that is being considered for a fire station.   Mr. Yarmo:  We have the conservation land donated by Stone Post I  - I think it is beyond the scope of this Board to pull all these pieces together, I need help with these three plans, I need to meet with Clay Mitchell and ask for his help.  I’m just over-whelmed in trying to pull these three plans together; this is a volunteer Board.  I can’t make recommendations to the Planning Board without some help - there’s just too much information out there to pull all these pieces together.  I appreciate your comment regarding my response that there’s going to be minimum impact with a dredge and fill, but I don’t know how you are going to convince me of that without me understanding the three or four other developments around it.  I don’t know how to do that other than meet with Clay and try to get some feel for where it is going and also include comments from the abutter.  This is like a huge master plan. Mr. Gove states that he will make the fire and police departments aware that they are going through an environmental area.  Mr. Yarmo:  We have to weigh the benefits of the public in general.  Mr. Gove:  The way the town property was developed it doesn’t leave us with too many alternatives to do anything.  Mr. Yarmo:  The property is surrounded by several natural resources like the conservation easement on the pond, town-owned property that is scattered all around the site and some considerations for wildlife corridors to remain in the area.  I would recommend to the Planning Board that they hire a third party environmental consultant to look at this whole thing.  I don’t know if it’s too late or not.  There are three developments with a couple of huge town parcels around it.  There is a wild life corridor involved too.  It also has traffic access problems.  Unless there is some type of study that includes all the information, and I meet with Clay, we can try to reconvene.  The next scheduled session with the Planning Board is the 18th.   It’s believed that a site walk has already been done and they are waiting for the environmental impact assessment.  It’s unsure the traffic study has been done yet and possibly a couple of studies out there that have not come in.  The issue that comes up too is the way that the topography of the land is configured, the top of the hill and everything slopes away from it.  The area has many vernal pools and possible hiking trails. Case set aside this evening.

 

 

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page 5

 


Map 14, lot 3-88-2 and 3-89, Viewpoint Estates, Proposed Four (4) Single Family Homes on Extension of Priscilla Way

 

The developer is M & P Real Estate Trust.  Presentation is by Mike Gove of Gove Environmental (GE).  This is an extension of the existing roadway off Mammoth Road.   Presently there is a temporary cul-de-sac. They’re proposing to extend the road about 300-feet and involves 4 lots.  There are catch basis that go down the property line into a treatment swale.  Everything on the list is outside the wetland buffers.  The existing road is approximately 1600-feet.  Mr. Yarmo questions where the location of the existing bridge is on Priscilla Way; there is no impact on the wetlands you just add the buffer on three houses, 2 on the new road and one on Nashua Road?  That’s correct says Mike.  Mr. Yarmo:  We just read a whole bunch of environmental reports on how to put buffers around wetlands; is there any way that we can extend the buffer around some of these areas? - It’s not in concert with anyone’s rights and would be a good-will gesture?  This one on Priscilla Lane has the famous standard rib/raf and treatment soil again.  Answer: Yes says Mike.  Mr. Yarmo:  It would be worth looking at, to consider trading off the grade by gently sloping it as you’re only picking up 2 catch basins.  Mike:  The grade to the existing cul-de-sac is about 6%.  Town regulations require around 5%.  The other properties, down Priscilla Way, aren’t they wetlands down there asks Mr. Yarmo.  Mike: I don’t have the existing subdivision.  Mr. Yarmo asks the other Conservation members if they would like to do a site walk on this just for general interest, just to look at the existing properties.  Mr. Culbert questions if Mr. Yarmo had walked Priscilla Way.  Mr. Yarmo replied that he had not, that he wasn’t on the Conservation Commission when Priscilla Way was constructed or presented.  Conservation members, whoever they were at that time, did walk Priscilla Way.  Mr. Yarmo continued saying he didn’t see a whole lot of problems with this except to get the WCD signs up, etc.  A site walk would help the Conservation Commission by looking at the grade and they could recommend that a swale be eliminated and have natural drainage according to the topography.  Mike asks if this is the plan that had a couple of wetland violations or are they still pending?  Mr. Yarmo responded in the affirmative.  He went on to say there are 3 wetland violations pending on the Priscilla Way, one where the bridge is.  There are a total of 3 complaints; two being filed by Mr.Yarmo, and one filed by an abutter.  The violation filed by the abutter was that an access road was created across a stream so the heavy equipment could get to the other side of the property.  The violations that were filed by Mr. Yarmo were for crossing into the wetlands and the bridge construction that was an encroachment into the wetlands for use of an extension where originally there was a cart path into the wetlands.  If there are pending violations with DES that would make them in non-compliance he says.  There was a question as to why would the Planning Board act if they were in non-compliance with the first phase of development?  A recommendation can be made to the Planning Board; it’s possible there are going to be other wetlands violations on Priscilla Way.  One of the parcels is where the 3rd and 4th parcels are.  There is a long straight driveway that goes over a bridge, then over a high and dry area, with

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page 6

 

 

wetlands in the back and in the front where there are no wetland flagging whatsoever.  Mr. Yarmo believes there are 3 wetland violations and says the Town of Pelham doesn’t commit a lot of resources for enforcement and there’s a lack of personnel to enforce issues like this – if they were enforced they would stop.  Mike of GE asks if they will have to come back before the Commission again.  Mr. Yarmo states it’s a pretty simple subdivision and he would like to take a quick sitewalk.  He doesn’t think that GE has to come back before this Board.  A recommendation will be made to the Planning Board that the first phase is not in compliance.  It wasn’t felt that the Conservation Commission could contribute anything else at this time.

 

MOTION:  (Culbert/Kakkad) To not consider the second phase until Phase I is in compliance.

 

VOTE:  (5-0) Motion Passes.

 

 

Map 4, lot 137, Meadowview Estates - Dredge and Fill Application for Jeremy Hill Land Development for Reconsideration

 

Mr. Yarmo:  This parcel has a lot of history to it and the plan has come before the Conservation Commission a couple of times. A couple of site walks have been done. The first time the developer came before the Commission there was a number of different road configurations.  The Commission recommended a road configuration that did not require any dredge and fill requirements.  The developer came in and proposed two bridges.  Part of his mitigation program minimized the impact on the wetlands with the proposed 2 bridges, one on Longview and one on Meadowview Road.  The developer came back once again as he had gone to the Planning Board as they did not want to make the recommended road connection, they wanted to create a cul-de-sac.  The Planning Board decided that they wanted connectivity.  The Conservation Commission felt that this was a very sensitive area to the wetlands and that the traffic study submitted by CLD did not recommend this connection.  The civil engineering study by CLD did not recommend this connection.  Also, Herbert Engineers and Gove Environmental did not recommend this connection.  It was agreed that a bridge would be used in order to mitigate the impact on the wetlands.  The connection is a very steep slope.  Mr. Yarmo:  This came back before the Commission once again for reconsideration of the bridge application; the bridge proposal was accepted by the Commission and now we are asked to consider a culvert.  The Conservation Commission, at that time, said no.  The bridge concept was accepted as part of the impact to the wetlands.  The Planning Board’s position was that the maintenance cost to the town for a bridge was something that they didn’t want to bear.  Reference was made to what it had cost the town in the past to maintain bridges.  Mr. Yarmo stated his position to the Planning Board with regard to maintenance of the bridges, that they hadn’t received any attention for 10 to 20 years and had included the cost of the historical restoration of the Abbott Bridge. The bridge that

 

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page  7

 

 

was proposed is a pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete bridge.  It was stated that there is new technology that says they are good for 100 years.  It was in the public’s benefit to keep that wetlands intact and span it with a bridge.  Mr. Yarmo asks GE if these statements are correct and Mr. Gove answers “That is right”.  Mr. Yarmo says now we are being asked to consider a culvert.  The Planning Board says they want this connection and doesn’t care what you want to do.  It’s my understanding you’re in front of us with a dredge and fill application to put in a culvert.  Mr. Gove:  The Planning Board absolutely wants the connectivity.  I just made copies of the Planning Board’s minutes of October 22, 2001.  Make sure it gets into the record about the connectivity.  Also, there is a comment by Mr. Pat Culbert about the fact that when he voted to accept the bridge he had also favored a culvert but was unaware that the town would be 100 % responsible for the bridge.  There was a misconception that bridges would always have the 80/20 split on repairs of bridge structures, that the town actually gets an opportunity to utilize the state DOT funds at an 80/20 level.  Now the Planning Board realizes they don’t have that 80/20 split and this case is back before the Conservation Commission to change from a bridge to a culvert.  The Planning Board doesn’t want to maintain another bridge – they have one bridge already and don’t want to maintain another.  When the road gets put in there are issues with grading and grading impacts; it wasn’t anticipated when the original layout was put in.  There are 3 impact areas.  One is for the actual culvert itself.  There is also the edge grading and is still set at a 1 to 1 slope but impacts one edge.  The wetlands impact associated with this is 2,457 square feet.  It is a minimum impact project.  Mr. Yarmo instructs GE to go back to the Planning Board and resubmit to get the revised roads accepted. 

 

Linda Call of McLain Law Firm, representing the developer, Jeremy Hill Land Development says it was made clear at the October 22 meeting that they rejected the request to end the road with the cul-de-sac, not make the stream crossing at all and in the course of things have connectivity.  Ms. Call said the Planning Board was encouraging the culvert route.  Part of the reason we are here is we thought we had to change circumstances given the proposed subdivisions that are close to ours that are going to connect Wallaby Circle.  The Planning Board said that connectivity had to be maintained and they would be receptive in considering the culvert. We were reminded by the Planning Board that we would have to come back before the Planning Board to do an amendment to this subdivision plan if we got the culvert, that the culvert requires a dredge and fill application.  She stated further that they were on a very tight time frame that construction is underway, houses are being sold, and they need to make this connection.  If we can’t get this alternative through DES in a timely basis we’ll have to live with the bridge alternative.  If we can get a sense of support from Conservation, we’re going to plow through it and try to get the dredge and fill application and at the same time ask the Planning Board to give us contingent approval to go the culvert route if we can get DES approval.  Ms. Call points out that there are pending purchase and sales agreements with homebuyers and there are people knocking at their door wanting to

 

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page  8

 

hurry along things so that their home(s) could be built faster.  Mr. Yarmo:  The connection doesn’t provide you with any more outlets.  Ms. Call:  No, it doesn’t at all, but it is again part of our project that we’ve got to go forward one way or the other.  Mr. Yarmo:  If you ended with a cul-de-sac you can still build all the lots in the subdivision.  Ms. Call:  I agree, that’s why we still think that is the more logical route and that is why we went back to the Planning Board to argue it one more time.  When this was approved as subdivision, Longview was ending in a cul-de-sac and it was not known then when that might extend to another existing road of the town.  Since the approval, when we were back before the Board in October, they already had before them the next subdivision plan that will extend Longview Circle all the way to Valley Hill Road.  That’s what we argued, that you’ve got the connectivity there, you’ve got the connectivity of Holstein Drive.  Why force this connectivity up the hill and across the stream when it’s not essential.

 

Mr. Yarmo:  The decision of the Conservation Commission is whether we want to support a dredge and fill permit to put a culvert in.  By putting the culvert in, the grading has changed on the road and has impacted more wetlands up the hill.  If you put the bridge in, the road stays high and it doesn’t impact the wetland.  The Planning Board’s decision to make connectivity and to put the culvert in has impacted the wetlands that were not going to be impacted with a bridge.  Mr. Gove agrees with this statement.  Mr. Yarmo:  We have a decision to make on whether or not we want to recommend or not recommend this dredge and fill application for a culvert to DES.  If we don’t recommend it I think they can still issue it based on the Planning Board’s requirement for connectivity but it may take longer.  Mr. Gove:  The DES very seldom ever requires a bridge crossing for something of this particular magnitude.  It is a perennial stream and it is not a very wide one – it’s actually less than the minimum impact type of criteria.  It has to be less than 10-feet wide and the channel is less than 10-feet wide.  The issue comes up that it is a permutable project under DES’s standards and even though there was a less impacting alternative they initially proposed a bridge.  DES virtually never required a bridge for this type of structure says Mr. Gove. The argument that would be made at the DES level is #1: One of the town boards, not necessarily the Commission, is in support of a structure other than the bridge; a culvert could be an open bottom culvert, and it’s still a culvert.  #2: the Planning Board mandates the connection. The fact that we have minutes indicating it is sufficient for DES to say okay this is required and necessary.  Mr. Yarmo:  The testimony at the Planning Board meeting from CLD’s engineer was that during construction of this project there was an incredible sighting of wildlife in this corridor - there was moose and deer, and their recommendation was to leave this area undisturbed and not connect.  Mr. Gove:  Initially, before conceptual discussions, this area was fostered onto this parcel and we can’t seem to get rid of it.  Mr. Yarmo:  This land is like being on a roller coaster, like Canobie Lake Park.  I think what may have happened is the developer made a mistake in that he mis-judged the soil characteristics and what bridge would be applicable in that instance.  I think he thought he could get away with a simple

 

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page   9

 

 

pre-cast bridge for a certain amount of money and it ended up being quite a bit more expensive.

 

Ms. Call says a simpler bridge would work here and it was really CLD who was on site and had raised the flag to be careful that this was a trickier situation than anticipated.  The developer who bought it under one scenario, that a bridge that was going to be suitable now finds out that it is a much more difficult engineering feat and higher expense than what was anticipated and gets you no additional lots.  Mr. Yarmo:  There was no maintenance data presented anywhere.  The Conservation Commission had asked for maintenance data.  Ms. Call:  I did ask my client about that as you had raised that question at the Planning Board meeting.  You had also asked the manufacturer for any written data on longevity of the project, life expectancy and expected repairs.  You got a lot of verbal responses, such as “these things last forever”.  Someone threw out 100 years.  You asked repeatedly what written materials can be provided at that hearing and have still not received anything.  One answer was “All I can tell you is that it is concrete”.  Another question was what affects concrete most in New England?  Answer: Salt.  His judgment was “how much salt is the town going to apply to this”.  Mr. Yarmo:  Salt is going to be required – this is a steep slope.  It’s going right into the water, right into the wetlands.  The problem of getting a dredge and fill permit is it will take longer if we don’t recommend it.  My thoughts are we are losing some mitigation here to the environment. Is there anything the developer can do in this entire site to provide any more mitigation; any more buffers anywhere that might help the cause?

 

Ms. Call:  The gain that I’m aware of is the culvert will, in this situation, be the easier construction project, easier to be careful and to maintain and will protect the wetlands in the process of doing it.  The bridge is actually going to be a greater challenge.  This is the red flag or the warning sign that CLD was raising.  You have to proceed with great caution because its not going to be an easy job, it’s going to be a challenge.  Mr. Yarmo:  We’ve heard testimony before that bridges can be absorbed past the wetlands.  I think I can support a dredge and fill permit provided that I go to the site and see that all the erosion control and all the wetlands signage that’s suppose to be in place, is in place and the wetlands mis-mapping of a certain area that we talked about off of Holstein be corrected and all information get to this board immediately.  I’ve talked to Peter (Zohdi) a couple of times and he promised it to me.  I haven’t seen it yet.   Jim Gove:  I talked to Steve Haight yesterday and said I wanted it for tonight’s meeting.  Steve said he couldn’t give it to me for this evening, that it was in the computer but it wasn’t completed yet, and he was still working on the septic design.  Mr. Yarmo:  I’m as frustrated as you are.  Everyone has my telephone number.  The history on this one is one of the abutters on Holstein, one of the first communications, was that there was a septic design in a wetland, which I didn’t believe.  Then I had an attorney call me and tell me the same thing.  Then I had an engineer call me and tell me the same thing.  I then made phone calls to you people (Gove Environmental), and the explanation that I got was “when the original design teams were out there doing the mapping that the property boundaries had not been

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page  10

 

 

laid out so you stopped short of where you should have and there is a piece of wetland on the property, and it didn’t get mapped.  Mr. Gove says that’s right and there is a 5-flag wetland pocket and is on the property boundary.  There is an existing house and we didn’t think it was in the person’s back yard.  It wasn’t conceived that that homeowner would build their home on the property line.  Mr. Yarmo:  At some point the property line should have been laid out before starting construction.  There is a piece of wetlands out there that wasn’t mapped, there is a septic system designed to go over the wetlands.  I don’t know if that is true or not so I called Herb’s and Jim’s office and explained that I would like that information just to make me feel a little more comfortable.  I still haven’t got that information.  Mr. Gove:  The actual test pit that was dug was dug too close to the wetland; the septic system has to be re-engineered away from the wetlands to meet state standards.  The major concern was that there was water run off from an adjacent subdivision onto an abutter’s property.  Another thing that has been agreed to that is outside the wetland boundary, that a berm be installed that will eliminate drainage going onto his property.  The septic system needs to be moved and house set back.  Mr. Yarmo asks if Gove needs to go back to the Planning Board for this change?  GE said he didn’t think so, that they reviewed the septic design, but the lot stays the same, it’s only a septic design issue says Mr. Gove.  Mr. Yarmo’s recollection of when he had walked the property was with a guy with the dog and he is the current owner.  Mr. Yarmo consulted with other Board members to see what they would like to do.  The options are:  deny the application for a dredge and fill; stick our feet in the ground and say “Planning Board we think you made a mistake, we’re not going to cooperate, or they are going to get the dredge and fill application anyway”.  Mr. Yarmo believes the developer made a mistake and in his opinion the Planning Board also made a mistake.  Mr. Kakkad said if we deny this dredge and fill permit with the existing road structure that goes around the wetlands anyway that it shouldn’t hold up any construction of any houses and they will get a dredge and fill permit eventually.  Ms. Call says there is also the practical issue:  when you start to work on Longview Circle they’ll be removing fill to built a culvert or to build a bridge and it’s hard to do construction when you don’t know what you are building.   Mr. Yarmo:  You can always do a temporary water connection over the wetlands.  Mr. Gove says that a dredge and fill permit is still needed.  Mr. Yarmo suggested that the pipe go over the area and make a temporary connection.  Mr. Gove says there is the issue of still needing some type of structure to hold the pipe up.  The way it was originally designed was pipes went over the bridge and then buried it within the fill over the top of the bridge and then it was out in the open.  If it’s to be a culvert, the water pipe is buried in the fill over the top of the culvert.  If the pipe is exposed out in the air, the water will freeze.

 

Mr. Yarmo says the Commission can approve this under protest.  A letter can be written to the Planning Board saying that Conservation protest this and send recommendations under protest and also write that we protest their decision, that it was detrimental and unnecessary to the environment.  Mr. Culbert says when you said approve it with a recommendation to the Planning Board, there is still the issue about connectivity, but we

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page 11

 

aren’t going to intervene.  It will get approved anyway, I can’t see holding this up for 6 months.  It means a lot of paperwork and a lot of headaches for a lot of people.  Mr. Yarmo:  I’d like to add that Clay Mitchell also didn’t recommend it.  Ms. Call says they could ask them to reconsider that decision and at the same time offer a contingent amendment to the subdivision.  She continued to stress that she would like to be able to ask for reconsideration of the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Yarmo said that could be included in the letter.   Mr. Yarmo said he would be visiting the site to see that the erosion control is in place; the signage is in place, and all the other environmental commitments the developer promised is done correctly.  Before the letter is sent to the state we will go out there and review it and say “guys you aren’t in compliance” says Mr. Yarmo.  Maybe we can make a recommendation for an additional buffer.  We’ve lost a lot of mitigation; let’s pick it up (mitigation) somewhere.  Ms. Call says that it may be possible if we stay along the wetlands and create an easement line that does not interfere where houses are likely to be built.  Mr. Gove:  I think a larger buffer could be created in some of the areas to the existing wetland areas.  Ms. Call said that was part of the proposal, to end it in a cul-de-sac and be able to leave a larger area in its natural state.  There was discussion about open bottom culverts that have corrugated metal on the bottom.  They are not normally used in the New England area, as those types of pipe seem to corrode quicker.  Mr. Yarmo requested that Gove send him whatever information he has for concrete culverts?

 

MOTION:  Approve the dredge and fill application under protest, make sure that the erosion control is in place, and to send a letter to DES and request additional buffers along the wetlands.

 

VOTE:  (5-0) – Motion carries.

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Mr. Yarmo announced that the wetlands signs are now available and gave out samples and the preferred method of installation.  They may be purchased at the town Planning office.  They should be installed every 50-feet, but to use discretion, such as apply to a tree if that should be more appropriate.  The cost is probably going to be $2.00 each.  Mr. Duquette asked when a developer is suppose to use these signs is there any type of check and balance to see that they are actually installed?  Mr. Yarmo says there is nothing in place presently with code enforcement the way it is right now and agreed there should be some sort of tracking.  The new subdivision rules includes some type of verbiage that site stipulations have to be met before building permits are issued.  It was Mr. Yarmo’s intention to officially send one of these signs to Gove and Zohdi.  The town selectmen and code enforcement officer have one already.  It’s going to be requested that the Code Enforcement Officer check on subdivisions where they had been promised, and if not installed, to request that they be installed.  No building permit should be issued unless erosion control is in place and signage is in place.  If the signs are up when a home-owner buys the house, he’s going to know what it is, and that he is not suppose to cut trees and such because it is valuable.

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page 12

 

 

NEW BUSINESS:  Mr. Yarmo has the ‘natural resources chapter’ of the Master Plan.  Conservation should be submitted to NRPC in 2 weeks.  Our comments and maps are due by the next Conservation meeting

 

Mr. Yarmo says the other issue is the draft of the environment tax assessment.  This was precipitated by several environmental reports that were absolute “not what we needed”.  The Commission was to receive an environmental analysis that was going to be helpful.  The problem is you have a developer who has hired an environmental consultant, so he’s hard-pressed to meet his obligation to the guy who is paying him and also meet his professional commitment to his license.    If I were a developer and hired Gove Environmental to do an environmental report to give to the Planning Board and Gove Environmental recommended not to build, let’s say, 3 houses because it was next to a wildlife corridor, I would hang him.  This was precipitated by a Conflict of Interest that occurs between the guy writing the environmental report and the guy paying for it.  This is going to be the standard that we want the Planning Board to accept as the standard for how the environmental impact should be written.  It’s important that there be a third party environmental survey. This will become part of the subdivision regulations. Chris Montminy states that his comments will be based on wetlands in determining what the differences are in wetlands as well as taking the development as a whole, including abutters, or any other property and look at wetlands as a whole or a region, like the 3 developments that they are working on this evening.  Mr. Duquette said we have the mappings of the watersheds systems in town, that they are unbelievable.  They indicate where all the watersheds are, what areas might be contaminated, etc.  Mr. Yarmo:  The Natural Resources Inventory should be done in about a month.  Mr. Montminy:  We never have enough copies of plans when cases come before us.  Mr. Yarmo:  We need to set up a protocol with reference to new cases that come before us, reference paperwork, etc.

 

Another item under new business is a controversial item coming up about Raymond Park.  Raymond Park is a town-owned parcel with certain deed restrictions.   William “Spike” Hayes went to the BOS and volunteered to do something; create a park, create a soccer field, whatever it is.  I guess he has taken it on himself to do work and plan some work without consulting Conservation or Planning.  I believe that parcel had wetlands on it and wetland mitigation on it.  The Planning Board is very interested in what’s happening up there and why they haven’t been consulted.  Mr. Yarmo said he had a request from the Planning Board to go up there and take a look and find out what is going on and to express our concerns.  He polled members if they could do a site walk on Saturday.

 

Mr. Montminy suggests that the Conservation Commission put together some sort of a packet that would be available at voting time, to act as an informative brochure relative to wetlands and conservation land.  Mr. Yarmo says that will be part of the NRPC’s job once all information is available.  The Conservation Commission could endorse a

 

Pelham Conservation Meeting-March 13, 2002                                              Page  13

 

statement such as “Let us raise money to buy parcels of land - it is either buy land or build schools”.

 

Mr. Yarmo refers to a letter that Ron Bourque wrote to the BOS when he resigned from the Conservation Commission that states, “The resignation is based on the fact that he wasn’t comfortable following the rules of the Conservation Commission”. The Conservation Commission should respond to his statement.  His statement is very inappropriate and it implies that we do not follow the laws.  Conservation needs to go on record with the BOS to state the position of the Conservation Commission that we do follow the laws of the state. 

 

Mr. Yarmo:  We have to agree what to charge for these signs, and quote the RSA’s that allow us to do certain things with Conservation Funds.  We also have to decide what fund to apply the money to.  A $2.00 charge is being considered.  The funds from the sale of these should go either to the general operating fund or into the Conservation Fund.  If it goes into the Conservation Fund it gets locked in there for the purpose of purchasing conservation land.  We can fund additional studies that we need to supplement natural resources inventory whatever we want to do.  There is still a need for a secretary.

 

MOTION:  To charge $2.00 per sign and fee is to go into Conservation operating fund.

 

VOTE:  (5-0) – Motion carries.

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                    Glennie Edwards

                                                                                    Recording Secretary

 

Transcribing from VCR Tape