Town of Pelham, NH

Pelham Conservation Commissi= on

6 Village Green

Pel= ham, NH 03076

Meeting of 1/12/2005 &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Approved on 4/20/05

<= /p>

Members Present &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Absent

Robert Yarmo, Chairman &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Amy Breault &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp;

Paul Gagnon &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Shirley Wakefield (Alternate)

Deborah Scott &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Glennie Edwards (Alternat= e)

Paul Dadak

Chairman Yarmo brought the meeting to order at 7:35

HEARINGS:

Map 15 & 22, Lo= t 8-86, 88, 89 – Pelham Estates, Inc., Tina & Balcom= Road, Proposed 23 Lot Subdivision

Representing this plan was Michael Gospodarek, P.E., of Edward Herbert Assoc., Inc. This is the first time that this c= ase has been brought before the Conservation Commission says Mr. Gospodarek. He is requesting the Conservation’s preliminary comments and possibly set up a site walk a= nd to get a recommendation that can be taken to the Planning Board with regard= to wetland impact and buffer zone impacts.&nb= sp; Currently this is a 3-lot subdivision with plans to make this a 23-l= ot sub-division in a residential zone. It’s proposed to extend Tina Avenue to Balcom Road. The proposed extension of Tina Avenue= is approximately 2,500-ft long to Balcom Road and a little= side street, Belevidere Way that is 700-ft long. About three-quarters = of the way from Tina Avenue there is a major wetland crossing and there is a flood plain issue accordin= g to Mr. Gospodarek. One of the co= mments from Dufresne Henry that got picked up from the Planning Board who is they trying to mitigate the fill that is planned fo= r the flood plain. A 24-inch pipe is shown on the plan with various rip-rap upstream = and downstream for erosion control. The fill is estimated to be 6,800-sq. ft. of wetlands. There is about= 7,000 sq.ft. of impact on= the buffer zone to get across the wetland.

Mr. Yarmo asked about the 7-thousand square feet of buffer impact and the locat= ion of the flood plain. Mr. Yarmo understood that it is being proposed to remove some wetland buffer to creat= e an additional deposit area for water in the event of a flood. Mr. Gospodarek answered that is correct. Mr. Yarmo reminded M= r. Gospodarek of the proposed sub-division on 128 Estates (Mammoth Road), where it was agreed = to do a restoration plan. At that t= ime Jim Gove created a planting plan. Mr. Yarmo asked about an environmental impact assessment report. Mr. Gospodarek stated that the pla= nning board did not request one but that “they” are doing one. Mr. Yarmo stated he believed that = an adjacency issue might apply where this is so close to Golden Brook. He suggested that a set of plans s= hould be sent to the state for their comments with regard to the adjacency issue. Mr. Yarmo questioned M= r. Gospodarek about the stump dump and whether this was the parcel that had the stump dump on it. Mr. Gospoda= rek said he didn’t think the stump dump was on this land. Member Paul Gagnon believed the st= ump dump was on lot #87. Member P= aul Dadak asked about applying crosshatch indicators on t= he plan that would show the wetlands and buffer areas.

A resident of that area, Mr. John O’Loughlin of Pelham Estates advised that as far as he knew the stump dump area was on lot #87. Member Paul Gagnon asked= Mr. O’Loughlin if lot #87 belonged to the town. Mr. O’L= oughlin said he believed it did. Mr. Gagnon then said then the stump dump is on town land. Mr. O’Loughlin said he believes there is a disagreement of ownership of that parcel. He said that he has a warrantee de= ed that shows that Roger Ploof owns lot #87 and he commented that currently there are some behind the scenes discussions with = the attorneys as to who actually owns lot 87. Mr. O’Lo= ughlin said that who ever owns #87 that it has no impact because they are not developing lot 87.&nb= sp; Mr. Gagnon says the owner of this sub-division created this stump dump. Mr. O’Loughlin said that was prior to his purchasing it and Mr. Ploof= had been taxed for it.

Mr. Gagnon asked Mr. Gospodarek if there were any other wetland impacts. Mr. Gospodarek pointed to the wetlands on the map. Mr. Gospodarek stated that the pla= ns were only concepts and that the location of houses and driveways may change= when they apply for the building permits.

PUBLIC INPUT:

James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue asked if he would be allowed to go along on the site walk once the date is established. Mr. Yarmo stated absolutely and usually the Planning Board sets the date and the Conservation Commission usually does the site walk at the same time with the Planning Board. If the Planning Board = does not do one the Conservation Commission will do one said Mr. Yarmo.

A member of the audience, Kyle McManus, said that this property was under agreement 3 years ago. He sai= d when you come in Tina, come through the power lines, there’s a set of towe= rs on the left where the stump dump is and that 17-feet off that tower there a= re many species of flowers and that since Mr. Ploof removed fill, removed the trees and there was a rock wall that was in and o= ut of water. Mr. McManus said th= at “they” were going to log it and then develop it. He indicated that Mr. Ploof came out and flagged it and then we disagreed o= n the test holes and come to find out we were going to get 15 lots because of the wetlands and the buffer on both sides.&nbs= p; Since then Mr. Ploof has gone in and str= ipped all the vegetation all the way back to the walls – every tree and eve= ry stump and vegetation is gone. There is a 24-inch plastic pipe that was never there before and it now picks up w= ater and that is how he was able to log it.&nbs= p; Mr. McManus said that at the Planning Board meeting a few weeks ago = at Mr. Gendron was present and said his parcel of = land has been cut off because of the wetland and that he cannot access it from r= oute 38. He was trying to get a ri= ght of way to dry property. Mr. McMa= nus said that what Mr. Ploof did was totally illega= l with regard to filling the wetlands and that over time there is going to be a de= terioration of the aquifer because of the work done by Mr. Ploof. He understands that Mr. Ploof has been cited, b= ut does not know how much and that he’s been in there 2 years stumping a= nd logging.

Mr. Gagnon made reference to the Pelham Fish and Game that Mark West was involv= ed in. He said Mr. West had gone= back into the records and produced some aerial photographs that showed the wetla= nds that existed prior to the disturbance at the Fish and Game and wondered if = the Commission should get an independent wetlands scientist to look at this par= cel and get some aerial photography. Mr. Gagnon said he didn’t disagree with the borings but felt t= hat aerial photogra= phs would show more accuracy. Mr.= Yarmo said that the stumps are an environmental concern and are going to deterior= ate over time and will affect the prime wetland. Mr. Gagnon said that he feels that= due to the stumps being taken from these parcels that they are applicable in his opinion. They were stripped o= ut of wetlands and the wetlands back-filled.&nbs= p; Mr. Gagnon believes that before the Commission votes on this that it needs to be explored further. Mr. Yarmo said he didn’t know who is responsible to fix it and clean it up but we need to voice our concerns so that this issue gets addressed because= that’s one of the most valuable prime wetlands that the town has. Mr. Dadak asked Mr. Gospodarek if he had a sub-division plan put together. Mr.McManus said that a guy named Thibeault had submitted a= plan for single family dwellings years ago to which Mr. Dad= ak said that a comparison could be seen by comparing those plans to what is proposed now and therefore see the change that has been done, that aerial photos would show what has been altered.&n= bsp; The answer to how long ago the proposed plan had been done was 10, 1= 2 or 15 years. Mr. Yarmo indicated= that we will probably have to have another meeting on this as we will be getting= an environmental report to view. He said we talked about filling the flood plan and the mitigation in the wetla= nd area, which is a concern to us, and we need more information. Adjacency is also an issue and we = need input from the state. Mr. Yar= mo said that even though the area of the stump dump is not part of the proposed plan that it somehow needs to be cleaned up.

Mr. Gospodarek said that the next meeting with the planning board is the first = week in March. An environmental re= port will be available by February 16^th. Mr. Gagnon has concerns about wher= e the stumps came from that created this stump dump. Mrs. Edwards commented that she ha= d been told that many of the stumps were brought in from another area of town.

Map 30, Lot 11-97-2, James & Dawn Lever, 81 Dutton Rd, Proposed 2-lot Subdivision.

Mike Gospodarek represents this case. This case was brought before the Planning Board last week and there aren’t any conservation issue said Mr. Gospodarek and asks the Commis= sion if they would throw their support to a Zoning Board action issue. This is a subdivision of 2 lots on= which they are putting the house, septic system and well outside the wetland buffers. They are accessing t= he house by private driveway, not off Dutton Road, but off Campbell Road. The zoning board requires that the driveway be off the frontage, which is off Dutton Road. When we went to the Planning Board= they said this made a lot of sense because if we were to come off Dutton Road we would be impacting t= he conservation buffer zone and crossing a wetland to get to the upward portio= n of this lot. He said he went bef= ore the Planning Board because in 2002 the Planning Board approved a shared driveway off Campbell Road= for this lot. The Planning Bo= ard felt they didn’t want to approve this until it had gone before the Zo= ning Board because of the zoning issue with the driveway even though the Planning Board had previously approved the subdivision with a driveway easement to g= et to this lot. They still didn’t want to proceed without the Zoning Board’s action. He asks that the Conservation Comm= ission issue a memo to the ZBA supporting a shared driveway easement off Campbell Road.

Mr. Yarmo confirmed with Mr. Gospodarek that he had 200-ft of frontage on Dutton Road= and the ZBA likes to see the 200-ft accessed from the frontage. Originally this was= a 3-lot subdivision and now it is a 2-lot subdivision after the owner(s) gave some land to the other lots. Mr. Gospodarek said when this case came before the Planning Board in January of 2002, the shared driveway on a private road was approved and he would like to take advantage of it now. Mr. Gagnon questioned whether this = new house is a duplex. Mr. Gospod= arek said he could not comment on that right now. There is a question about the lot = not being big enough if the proposed building is a duplex. It was unanimous to send a favorab= le letter to the ZBA to avoid the wetlands impact.

Map 7, Lot 4-185, Geoffrey & Nora Detellis, Rocky = Hill Road &= #8211; Discussion of Driveway Access.

Mr. Gospodarek of Herbert Associa= tes represents this case. Mr. Gospodarek said the Planning Board and fire chief reviewed this and as the requirements for the town increased. The grade was increased quite a bit higher to allow for access for fire equipment. The driveway went from a 12-ft wide driveway to an 18-ft wide driveway. There is a driveway crossing of a wetland that is 18-ft wide of whic= h the total impact is 22-ft wide. T= here is about 880-sq.ft. of impact into the wetlands.= Mr. Gospodarek said when you take = into account the width that the Planning Board wanted, along with the wall system that is needed to construct you don’t have enough width to do that. That= is why we are back to the Commission to support the change of this narrow driv= eway to something wider so that it can be constructed it in accordance with the plan. Mr. Yarmo commented that there wasn’t enough loam under the current dredge and fill application – that’s correct said Mr. Gospodarek. He said everyone knows this is a s= teep lot and we would need a lot of rip-rap and stone work to stabilize the embankment. It would allow us= to build the 18-feet, put in the guardrail and go down 14 to 25 feet in height, which is a lot less than when this was first, brought before the board.

Mr. Gospodarek said that original= ly they were coming off the roadway, going down and then going up. As we started to get more and more= into the safety issues of the town, because of the access to the park issue, etc= ., the fire trucks driving up it that dip became an issue with him. We started raising it more and mor= e and the fire chief got involved; he wanted to have control over the slopes.

Mr. Yarmo said when the Commission first saw this we wanted to minimize the excavation and the run off. Mr. Yarmo explained that “Spike” Hayes came before the Planning Board and explained that= the Boy Scout lot is behind this and asked for consideration to provide access = to that part of the Scout lot. Originally approved was 800 and by 80-sq.ft. and= now it is 2,700 sq. ft. Mr. Yarmo asked what was the minimum impact plan, g= oing from 8,000 to 2,000. Mr. Gosp= odarek said that they were using a 2 to1 slope instead of 3-1 and said the guard r= ail helps a great deal. Mr. Yarmo asked Mr. Gospodarek that if they used a retaining walls instead of a 2 to 1 slope what would that save us in square footage in impact. Mr. Gagnon= asked what are the characteristics of this wetland, is= it a flowing stream? Mr. Gospodare= k said that there was very little drainage going through there. The size of the culvert would be 14-inch. Mr. Yarmo asked Mr. Gospodarek if he had to apply for a revised dredge and fill. The answer was yes and the plan wi= ll show it is approximately 9-ft up, past guardrails and then come out to a 2 = to 1 slope. Mr. Yarmo said he would respond to the revised plan and copy Mr. Gospodarek.

Map 9, Lot 13-145, Pelham Fish & Game, Standard Dredge and Fill Application to res= tore 27,932-sf of the 41,200-sf that had been previously filled. 13,268-sf of im= pact will remain.

Mr. Yarmo commented that he was somewhat surprised to see this on the agenda tonight as he wasn’t awa= re that we had gotten this dredge and fill application. Mr. Yarmo asked if there was anyon= e in the audience to represent this dredge and fill for the Fish and Game Club? Th= ere was no response from the audience. Mr. Yarmo instructed the recording secretary to make a note in the minutes that= no one was present to represent this dredge and fill application. Mr. Yarmo said this case goes back= about a year or so and that he didn’t have his notes in front of him to give the others on the Commission a “Readers Digests” version of the history of this case. He went= on to say that the last State action on this was concluded in a Mark West Environmental report or memorandum to the Conservation Commission, dated Au= gust 13, 2004. On that date they m= et with DES, Arlene Allen, Colin Adams and the wetlands scientist for the Fish and Game. It concludes that the following timetable would be met to submit a dredge and fill to resolve all= the issues there. There was a 40,= 000 or 80,000 sq. ft. violation that went to 40,000 sq. ft. The Commission appealed this and t= hen there were several meetings at DES. The bottom line was that at the meeting on August 13^th, they were suppose to meet a time table for what the applicant wa= s to meet. On August 31^{st,
2004, a complete wetland impact investigation was to be submitted to the
wetlands bureau. In the first=
week
of September 2004, authorized mitigation work for permit #20031395 was
granted. That didn’t ha=
ppen
either. And on September 30, =
2004
was to file an after the fact application for a roadway crossing and other =
fill
areas that had been identified in a previous investigation that was suppose=
d to
be retained by the applicant. That
didn’t happen either. <=
span
class=3DGramE>On October 31, 2004, authorized the roadway work restoration.=
Mr. Yarmo said by not having anyon=
e here
to explain this to us I think we should suggest that we execute our right to
intervene which gives us 45 days to extend the permit process 45 days so th=
at
we can send this to our wetland consultant and review this at a later time =
when
we have that input. Mr. Yarmo=
feels
it’s important that the Commission do a site walk because it is a very
large site and there has been a lot of wetland
violations. Mr. Yarmo asked f=
or any
other comments from the Commission.}

Member Glennie Edwards felt that a site walk was necessary and what really bothered her was that she had been familiar with this problem case for over a year and a half, and maybe even = two years and knew that it had a longer history with the chairman. Each of these times that this case= has been schedules no one has represented them.

Mr. Yarmo commented it would have been a lot easier if there had been someone to present their case but for tonight he felt that we should take a vote to intervene and extend the application time frame to 45 days so that we can have an opportunity to have our consultant look at it.

MOTION: (Glennie Edwards/Paul Gagnon) to e= xtend it 45 days in order to intervene and to do a site walk. VOTE: 5-0 in the affirmative.=

Map 35, Lot 10-10, Conceptual 25-lot Subdivision on Dutton Road

Representing this case is Mark We= st of West Environmental Services. Jonathan Ring made a power-point presentation from Jones and Beach Engineers in Stratham, NH.&n= bsp; Mr. Ring said that he had met with the Planning Board on a conceptual basis last summer to look at this property and talk about some work that Er= ic Mitchell had done a few years back. They had talked about the wetland impacts and the nature of the property. They suggested that= we do a little bit of re-evaluation on it, which we have done. We have 2 plans. The first one is a 25-lot subdivision. Mark did a site = walk and evaluated the wetlands that he felt we should preserve and protect. We then modified the plan, left th= e road pretty much where it is because we are following an existing woods road on = this farm, which is property owned by the Comeau family. It was a farm previous to returning to woodlands. By following the existing woodland= s road they minimized the wetland impact and eliminated 4-lots as suggested by Mark West, and to especially to preserve areas wildlife corridors that exist as there are some sensitive habitat.

Mark West said the main goal was = to get some input from the Conservation Commission, especially because of some potential vernal pools on the site. Mr. West said the developer came to him with the plan that originally had 25-lots and that he has eliminated 4 lots where he thought to be the most key areas.= The property frontage is on Dutton Road and contains property of the Comeaus (a home and a business that does a silk scree= n operation). There are a couple of pieces that = abut the Comeau land that was purchased by the town = and was put into conservation land. Mr. West said that the Planning Board’s issue was that they wanted a thro= ugh road for connectivity and safety purposes. The four lots that were eliminat= ed by Mr. West were adjacent to conservation land and also adjacent to potenti= al vernal pool sites. One of the wetlands goes along the backyard of existing homes. Another wetland is adjacent to Dutton Road= . Mr. West said that this time of ye= ar (January and the springtime) is not really the best time of year to do an assessment of the land. The power-point presentation showed several wetland= s, vernal pools, poorly drained soils and several logging roads. Mr. West said= that there would possibly be installed a critter crossing culverts which are culverts that have headwalls on them that encourage wildlife and critters t= o go through them. The culverts al= so have light and moisture that gets down into the box culvert and it stays we= t so as to accommodate amphibians to move through. Mr. West spoke of open bottom box culverts that would have a totally open channel underneath so they would not disturb the channel. The total wetland impact on this layout is 19,200 sq.ft. for the crossing and 1 driveway crossing.

Mr. Yarmo asked how many of the proposed house lots abut the conservation parcel. Mr. West answered 4 lots. Mr. Yarmo asked if any of the wetlands were going to be used for retention or detenti= on. Mr. West answered because it is a conceptual it hasn’t been designed.&= nbsp; Mr. Ring said typically they prefer to do broad channels rather than detain in the wetlands system. Some areas might be slowed down by the use of a 12-in pipe.

Mr. Yarmo says he sees 8 wetland crossings for the roads, 1 wetland crossing for the driveway and WCD crossi= ngs for driveways. He feels that = this is excessive and asks where is the avoidance and minimizations.

[Member Paul Dadak left the meeting]

Mr. Yarmo said his concern is at = what point does this become ridiculous with wetlands crossings to get to high and dry land.&nbs= p; Is it 9 is it 100? At = what point does the town of Pelham say enough is enough, we are going to protect= the environment and you can’t cross the wetlands 44 times to get 21 house lots, and cross the WCD 10 times to get 21 house lots. I’m pretty upset by this pla= n said Mr. Yarmo. I don’t think it’s reasonable, I think it is out of balance. Mr. Ring says in his experience wo= rking with the state of NH, Wetlands Bureau, that 3,800 linear feet of road and a half an acre of wetland impact are not unreasonable. Mr. Yarmo says he is looking at the cumulative affect of all the wetlands crossing, de-fragmentation of the hab= itat and includes all the clearing and grading that has to go on in the WCD R= 11; he asked if there was any proposed mitigation for that and said we are look= ing at a lot of disturbance in the WCD for driveways, roads and filling of wetlands? Mr. Yarmo said the = plan presented to the Planning Board showed a cul-de-sac and the Planning Board wanted connectivity to Bra= ndy Lane.

Mr. Yarmo said his concerns are habitat fragmentation of all the wetlands crossings and all the WCD affects= - this is one big wetland system. Mr. West said some are isolated wetlands. Mr. Ring asked what the town’s position was with regard to sha= red driveways. He said they might= be able to do a shared driveway, which could eliminate the wetland impact on l= ot 6 and eliminate the disturbance within the WCD. He asked if the Commission would s= upport the shared driveways to which Mr. Yarmo said they don’t particularly = like them, but they have done them in the past with deed and maintenance agreeme= nts and agreements with the town. Mr. Ring asked what other mitigation items have you seen? He said Mark mentioned wooded buff= ers to some of these areas and we may be able to put a portion of these lots into conservation restrictions or conservation easements, particularly where it’s adjacent to the Costa land that the town purchased. Mr. Ring asked about the discs tha= t can be posted on the trees to the edge of the wetlands so that the homeowner wi= ll know where the wetland is so they will know where not to dump debris. Mr. Yarmo commented that is standa= rd procedure where there are wetlands but it doesn’t work and there is no enforcement in the town and people take the signs down, put them up and dec= lare it and there goes the WCD. Mr. Yarmo said that one of the reasons it doesn’t work is because of the large size of the homes and they encroach on the WCD; there is no yard so t= he owner of the property feels he needs more space so he clears the WCD.<= /o:p>

Mr. Ring stated that they would be willing to work with the Commission to create a connection both in land donation (lot behind 15 & 16) and take a look at the lot configurations= and wooded buffers. Mr. Ring said= this plan is a preliminary plan and they still needed to do test pits and comple= te the environmental analysis yet. Mr. West said “those” lots were not the biggest concern as they bac= k up to existing developments.

Mr. Gagnon said he appreciated th= at Mr. West had taken out some lots already but he would rather see the drivew= ays on lots 5,6 and 7 if they went out through to Br= andy Lane but the driveways do not go in that direction they go to the new road = and as a result the wetlands between them and the new road get all fragmented a= nd you wind up with wetlands that are completely encircled by driveways, houses and roads; that whole wetland system becomes wasted and rendered useless. There are three driveways shooting= through it, three house lots that virtually abut and a road on the other side ̵= 1;it is cut up into three rectangles. Mr. West agreed that on the whole site that is the one wetland that = is completely surrounded. Mr. Ya= rmo commented about the accessibility to the conservation lands, it would be ni= ce for the people in this neighborhood and residents from Brandy Lane to walk across one of t= hese lots to get into the conservation land.&nb= sp; Mr. West spoke of two little ditch systems over which little boardwa= lks could be erected to take people into a trail system into the conservation a= nd town-owned land. Mr. West says there is about 10 acres that could be deeded to the town. Mr. Gagnon was in favor of the use= of stone walls as property lines and signage of “Pelham Conservation Area” – he feels that that would be effective. Mr. Rice indicated that streams ar= e also a help in boundaries. Mr. Yar= mo asked about deed restrictions that would include WCD verbiage. He said there are a lot of people who buy these parcels that don’t even know that t= here is a WCD on their property and that they can’t use it other than walk= ing or hiking on it. Mr. Yarmo said that sometimes the signs get put up and sometimes they don’t but most of the time they are ignored anyway; how about a deed restriction so at least when they close the attorney will point out “there is a deed restriction, you have a wetland buffer on your property”. Mr. West sai= d that if it’s posted and on their deed that they (the new homeowner) starts= out on the right foot. Mr. Yarmo doesn’t believe the 50-feet increments for the si= gns is enough, that they should be closer.

Mike Black, the project developer, came to the microphone and introduced himself and said that he is working on the project. He said he under= stands the importance of the WCD and they have asked Dan Cyr, the town forester, to overseer the project if they get the approval to build. He would be the one who would be a= ware of the WCDs and where cutting shouldn’t be done.

PUBLIC INPUT:

None noted.

BACK TO THE BOARD:

Chairman Yarmo said he still feels this is excessive but is open to the mitigation that was talked about that = may change his mind. There needs = to be a site walk done by members of the board.&= nbsp; Mr. Yarmo said that he has already walked the site. Mr. West said there may be some mo= re mitigation and still have a viable project. Member Deb Scott asked about doing= a site walk, that maybe we could do it at the same time the Planning Board wo= uld do theirs. Mr. West asked for= as much information as he can get from the Commission before proceeding. Mr. Yarmo said the connectivity to= the town owned property and the conservation parcel is important and having the residents be able to access it and minimizing the impact in the WCD and habitat fragmentation. Mr. Yarmo thanked Mr. West and Mr.= Ring for coming in with the conceptual plan and felt that it was a huge effort to bring it in for the Commission’s comments/input and said having Dan C= yr overseer the logging is also huge as it usually gets ripped to shreds. Mr. Gagnon said the willingness to= work with us demonstrates already a significant thing and worth noting.

Map 30, Lot 11-218, Pam= ela Erickson, 27 South Shore Drive – Review of expansion of Single Family Dwelling within the WCD

The Zoning Board of Adjustment referred this case to us for comment because most of the addition is propos= ed to be in WCD on Little Island Pond.

Ms. Erickson said she would first like to apologize for the confusion about what was approved and not approve= d by the Conservation Commission. = The ZBA thought that I told them that the Conservation Commission had approved = the addition when I told you about it, when I went in for a perched beach waive= r.

According to the conversations at= the meeting of the ZBA, they seemed to feel that we had met all three points of= the criteria for an area variance, but wants some advice on a variance for the 50-ft set back from the shore line. She said she got waivers from the state for this development. Ms. Erickson said she provided a c= opy of the waiver to modify an existing slope beach to be a perched design with no change in the beach dimensions and the next waiver from the state was to al= low construction on the project within the primary building setback related to = the expansion of the footprint of the non-conforming lot. Mr. Yarmo read the language of the waiver, which read: “Pr= oject Description – Improvement of an existing non-conforming residential structure within the primary building setback. Expand the foot print for the non-= conforming residence, waiver approved – RSA 483B-92 is waived to allow the construction of the project within the primary building setback.” Ms. Erickson said it is basically = the same waiver that she would be looking for from the ZBA for building within = the 50-ft buffer, within 50-ft of the shoreline. The other waiver was for the perched beach. That was one o= f the conditions that she had to meet in order to comply in order to get the waiver. Mr. Yarmo said that a= t that time the two were not related; the perched beach and retaining wall were not related to the addition. Ms. Erickson said she had described the project to Mr. Yarmo when she had come before the Commission a month or so earlier and that there were no decisions made at that time. Mr. Yarmo = said he did not have any reference to the other waiver and the wetlands permit. Mr. Yarmo read from the descriptio= n on the perched beach waiver: “Modify the existing sloped beach to a perched design with no change in beach dimensions from Little Island Pond in Pelham”. Ms. Erickson said when she made application for the waiver she made reference to the addition and the garage project and said that she did describe it to the Conservation Commission as= to what she was doing. Ms. Erick= son made reference to a third waiver that is related to the septic design. She said she had an approved septic design for a contingency plan put in place – “they approved the construction of it even before we were going to do it” said Ms. Erickson. A fourth waiver was= sent into the state by the civil engineer for the septic placement. The next two release forms are for= the protective well radius – one for her neighbor and one for herself, stating that its placement is 75-ft from the wells.

Ms. Erickson made reference to the sq. footage size and dimensions. She stated that the existing home is 1,263-sq.ft of living space plu= s an 891-sq.ft. basement. The proposed addition includes 462= -sq.ft on the 2^nd floor and 322-sq.ft.on the main floor - an additional 784-sq.ft of living space. The basement will be increased by 462 = sq.ft. Mr. Gagnon asked Ms. Erickson why = she didn’t include the basement as living space and she responded that she was told you don’t count the basement as living space. The basement is finished off accor= ding to Ms. Erickson. She said that after the proposed addition that the total living space would be 2047-sq. f= t of living space. The total living space, including the basement will be 3400 sq.ft. She said the height of the structu= re would not change and the proposed garage is 24’ x 24’ and 14= 217; in height.

Ms. Erickson said the configurati= on that she proposed was one that would cost us the least and cause the least amount of destruction to the current house and keep the contiguous land open. If she were to submit n= ew plans showing the addition within the footprint, which would include the de= cks that are there now, the shape of the rooms would be impractical like a hall= way, rather than rooms. With the king-size bed there would only be a couple of feet at the end of the bed in= the master bedroom as it would only be 8’ wide by 33’ (the depth of= the house). The zoning board aske= d for us to come back with another proposal rather than the 14’ by 33’= ; to something smaller. If she sta= yed within the footprint it would only be 8’ wide. We tried to make it as small as po= ssible while making it a decent room size said Ms. Erickson. She said the main purpose of the addition was to give her daughters a bigger bedroom, and for us as well. She said they are in a tiny little= room now that has bunk beds and that they are getting a little older and need mo= re space. Ms. Erickson made refe= rence to computer-generated pictures of “before construction” and “after construction”. She said she is keeping more than 50% of grass and trees. Mr. Yarmo said to Ms. Erickson tha= t the question to us is whether or not we are going to support the incursion into= the buffer with the addition. His question to Ms. Erickson was why couldn’t the add= ition go out the front of the building, away from the water. Ms. Erickson said that that would = cost about another $50 thousand dollars. The three reasons for not adding to the front of the building was th= at that is where the kitchen is, where the well is, and the current location of the septic system. Ms. Erickson said there have been so many projects gone = on in the past around her without the homeowners even talking to the shoreline protection agency. Mr. Yarmo = said he was aware that some had not gone through the proper procedures or they wouldn’t have been approved otherwise. Ms. Erickson said the addition was= going parallel only. Mr. Yarmo said= she was going 6’ more into the WCD. Ms. Erickson said the addition was 14’ and included the deck t= hat was already there that was going to be replaced. She said they are replacing the de= ck and that it is part of the footprint. Mr. Gagnon stated that all but 3.7’ is in the WCD, t= hat virtually the entire home is in the WCD and that the back of house is 54= 217; from the water.

Mr. Yarmo said that his position = is #1, we say no that we do not support the incursion into the WCD, or #2, we = ask for some kind of mitigation. = Right now the buffer is important to the pond and right now the lawn doesn’t function as a buffer and it doesn’t have any particular value.

Mr. Gagnon said we are here to protect the environment and to enforce the laws that protect the environment. The ordinance sa= ys there should be no structures in the WCD.&= nbsp; The state and the government, even national, have shoreline protecti= on acts, which say no cutting within 50’ of a lake. This house is here because it has = been grand fathered. If we say sur= e, increase the house by 1,200 feet, and if every home in the WCD on every pon= d in Pelham shows up here next week and says we want to increase my home 50% to,= what do we do. Mr. Gagnon went on to say to Ms. Erickson and members of the Commiss= ion, that if you don’t stop that which has been grand fathered than you can’t stop and how do you mitigate on a lot this small and add shore line. Deb Scott said she agre= es and said where do you draw the line.

Ms. Erickson said a neighbor down= the street just got a permit for a 3-car garage and put a big room over the hou= se and no one had a problem with it and she is only asking to add 6-feet onto = the house and is having this huge problem getting it to happen. Ms. Erickson said that there is a = brand new house on Woeckle Circle, a huge house, that= took up the whole lot right on the water.&= nbsp; There is a brand new Colonial over on Gaston Road built in 2001 with no variance, no problem. Mr. Yar= mo said that the only concern of the Conservation Commission is about the environment and to support this would set a precedent. Ms. Erickson asked if a cap could = be put on this, that there would be no more building on this property. The answer was no we can’t do that. M= s. Erickson said to reconfigure the home would be more costly and cause more hardship.

Ms. Scott doesn’t feel that= we can support this because almost all of the house= is currently in the WCD and there is a way to add on without infringing more i= nto the WCD.

MOTION: (Deborah Scott/Glennie Edwards) to= send a negative recommendation to the ZBA

VOTE: 4-0 To = send negative recommendation to ZBA

MOTION: (Deborah Scott/Paul Gagnon) to App= rove Meeting Minutes of 12/8/04

VOTE: 4-0 to approve.<= /p>

Meeting adjourned at 10:3= 5 p.m.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Respectfully submitted,

Glennie M. Edwards, Recording Secretary