= Town of Pelham, NH<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>=

Pelham Conservation Commission<= /o:p>

6 Villag= e Green

Pelham, NH <= st1:PostalCode w:st=3D"on">03076-3723

MEETING OF 10/10/07 = &nb= sp; APPROVED 1/9/08

Members Present: &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ;

Paul Gagnon, Karen MacKay, Paul Dadak,

Lisa Loosigian, Glennie Edwards (Alt)

<= /p>

Chairman Paul Gagnon brought the meeting to order at <= st1:time Minute=3D"35" Hour=3D"19" w:st=3D"on">7:35 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS:

Map 21, 3-101 – 32-34 Tenney Road – This case is represented by J.R. Gauthier and a Mr. Mark Jennin= gs of Edward Herbert Associates. Mr. Jennings stated since the last time they came before the Conservation Commission the plan had changed slightly.&= nbsp; It had been requested by the Commission t= o locate the house in the center of the lot and to also move the driveway to the fro= nt of the house which would help in lowering the impact inside the WCD. There is a conservation area in th= e back of this lot that is going to be added to the 5 acre parcel which will then = be made into a conservation area. This property will have an additional 2 acres added to the 5 acres that were the= re originally. Chairman Gagnon questioned parcel 3-101-10 and wanted to know if this was new to the plan. Mr. Gauthier said he has owned that property since the 1970’s. He is proposing to add that parcel= (3-101) to the five acre parcel that is fronted on Tenney Road. Mr. Gauthier said rather than buil= d a driveway to that land-locked property in the back, we would add them both together and make everything out back a conservation easement and build the home in the front. It’s= his position that he has the ability to build two homes on this property. The front lot has 245’ of fr= ontage on Tenney Road. He said they could earmark 45 to 5= 0 feet to the landlocked piece and create two home sites. What he is suggesting to the board, rather than going for a dredge and fill to cross the wetland to the back, is that he build one home in the front. He said the hurdle that he faces is that there is a portion of WCD t= hat would be impacted on the front lot if he did that.

In reviewing the information gained from the site walk= , Chairman Gagnon said that most times “information doesn’t get recorded in the minutes when you are in the middle of the woods”. He said when this process began the house encroached 50’ into the WCD where the driveway is. He said when we looked at the plan= s on Saturday and did some brainstorming we proposed that the driveway be largely out of the WCD by bringing it in over the top of the septic system. He said we are now looking at a re= vised set of plans that still has an encroachment on the WCD but significantly le= ss than what had been proposed initially.&nbs= p; Chairman Gagnon said the proposal now is to mitigate the impact on t= he WCD by donating somewhere around 6 acres, or putting in a conservation easement which<= /span> would have mixed wetlands and uplands.&nbs= p; The alternative would be to put a driveway across the wetland to the uplands which are on that back two acres and that would have far more wetla= nd impact than putting it in the WCD directly adjacent to Tenney Road. Mr. Gauthier said that is correct.=

Member MacKay asked about the new plan and how much sp= ace is between the home and the edge of the wetland. Mr. Jennings answered somewhere ar= ound 30 feet. Mr. Gauthier said wh= at they have attempted to do is to center the house. He said if you look at these two p= lans, before and after, they have moved the house to the left or to the west and tried to center the homes between the wetlands. The driveway has been moved to the= front of the house so that the beginning of the driveway is completely out of the WCD. He said this is the best= that they can do on that site. Mr. Gauthier said that they have moved the house as forward as they can and sti= ll meet the 30 foot front line setback and meet the minimum distances to the septic tank and septic system that the town requires. Mr. Gauthier said this plan meets = all state regulations, i.e., setback to wetlands and soil types. Mr. Gauthier said that a “Cl= ean Solutions” septic system will be installed rather than the convention= al septic system. He said they h= ave taken every effort to minimize the impact to the property. Mr. Gauthier was asked about the distances of the silt fencing. He said in order to do the construction the silt fencing would be half way bet= ween the home and the edge of the wetland. Chairman Gagnon asked if we could conclude that they wouldn’t = be cutting any of the trees or vegetation between the silt fence and the wetland. Mr. Gauthier said th= at was correct. Chairman Gagnon aske= d what was the plan for a back yard and a front lawn. Mr. Gauthier said his recommendati= on would be to not disturb anything beyond the well. Chairman Gagnon said he was lookin= g for a commitment to a certain number of feet of WCD that would be protected and maybe there could be “no cut, no disturb” signs. Mr. Gauthier said they could maint= ain 10 feet off the wetland and that is where the corners of the house are. Mr. Gauthier said there is no matu= re vegetation, that it is all saplings. He said it is kind of difficult to attach a sign to a sapling. Mr. Gauthier said the wetland arou= nd the property is in no way a prime wetland in any shape or form. Mr. Gauthier said there is a pedes= trian access from the end of Ind= ependence Drive down into that 2 acre parcel that is bei= ng proposed to be added to this. What is not shown on this plan is a portion of uplands that is in the middle of = these 5 acres and has substantial mature pine and hardwood on it. Mr. Gauthier said there is between= 30 to 40 thousand square feet of upland that is in the rear, it’s not all wetland. The easement of Independence Drive is right straight off Gaut= hier Way said Mr. Gauthier. Mr. Gauthier is before the Commission to get our recommendation before he goes to the ZBA and Planning Board. The reason Mr. Gauthier needs to go before these two boards is due to the town’s zoning ordinances that s= ays there shall be no structures in the WCD. Therefore he will need a variance to construct this home on this site where indicated on the plan. = Mr. Gauthier said this is the best that they can do on this whole piece of property. Mr. Gauthier said he feels strongly that he needs the support of the Conservation in order to mo= ve forward.

Chairman Gagnon asked Mr. Gauthier to give some histor= y of this parcel of land. That he = was familiar with the fact, as it was on record, that initially this piece of l= and was given to the town. Then t= he state cordon of NH said that it was unfair taking of land. Mr. Gauthier said there was a laws= uit that originated in Londonderry= , NH that for many years plan= ning boards throughout the state were asking developers for 10% of the property = that was being developed to be assigned to conservation. A developer took his case to court= as he felt this to be grossly unfair and the court ruled that it was an unfair ta= king of land. The towns had to ret= urn the parcels back to the developers. Mr. Gauthier got this land back in the late 70’s and he’= s been paying taxes on it ever since and now he wants to give it back to the town = of his own accord.

Member Edwards said she felt that this parcel does not= fit the mold of setting precedence as it has extra ordinary circumstances. Chairman Gagnon also agreed and sa= id he didn’t want to open the flood gates on putting structures in the WCD. He said it is clear as d= ay in the ordinance that you’re not suppose to put structures in the WCD. What’s weighing positive for Chairman Gagnon is the mitigation. There is roughly a half an acre of disturbance in the construction of the structure and driveway and approximately 6 acres of compensation, inclu= ding uplands, being deeded to the town.

INPUT FROM THE AUDIENCE: None

BACK TO THE BOARD:

Member MacKay asked Mr. Gauthier if he didn’t ge= t our support this evening, would he go to court and try to construct two homes.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gauthier said no, he would go = to the Board of Adjustment. He’= ;s already been before the Board of Selectmen and Health Officer Paul Zanowski’s and has their support on the previous plan. He feels that the newer plan is ev= en better and that he meets all the state’s regulations.

MOTION: (Gagnon/Edwards) Send a positive recommendation to the ZBA because this propos= al is far less destructive to the environment than the alternative and approximately 6 acres of uplands and wetlands are being protected as mitiga= tion for encroachment on the WCD.

VOTE: 4-= 1 in favor (Member MacKay voted no)

Member Edwards thanked Mr. Gauthier for the field trip= that he took us on last Saturday on Goldfinch to explain and show how the drain systems work with detention ponds, etc.&nb= sp; Mr. Gauthier stated there should be more of these type trips in orde= r to enlighten the land-use boards.

Map 4, Lot 9-= 138 – Marie Stadtmiller (Portner), Tallant Road – This is a 12 lot subdivision including an existing structure. Representing this case was J.R. Gauthier and Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering. There had been a joint meeting bet= ween the ZBA, Planning Board and Conservation Commission regarding a proposal to= do a “conservation sub-division” on this property. Member Dadak reported that the ZBA= did not support the variance/waivers for the frontage on 9 of the 12 lots. The case came in front of the Plan= ning Board as a more conventional plan, requiring 4 small wetlands crossing, sti= ll having 12 build able lots.

Mr. Maynard said there are actually 4 dredges and fill areas. The first two are asso= ciated with the road as it comes in off Tallant Road. The first impact is about 4,200 sq. ft. The second dredge and fill is approximately 1,600 sq. ft., the third impact is about 1,300 sq. ft. and the last impact is about 1,000 sq. ft. <= /span>There is also a driveway being removed for mitigation (restoration) purposes and = is approximately 1,750 sq. ft. T= he road itself, to get into this site, is pretty fixed in the location and minimizes both WCD and wetland impact in order to get a road into the useab= le portion of this property. The location of the proposed road achieves the required site distance that the town has for an intersection. Once you exit the proposed road it brings you to a large field and has no additional wetland impacts in that a= rea. The last crossing is pretty o= bvious that there is a considerable amount of flow from Windham that flows through this property. A large type of cul= vert is planned for this last crossing – it is approximately a 5’ diameter open box type culvert. The first stretch of road is planned as open ditches. That will take away the need of a detention pond or treatment swales to be constructed in the lower portion of this property which is associated with the WCD associated with the wetland = that runs along Tallant Road said Mr. Maynard.&= nbsp; Mr. Maynard said the roadside ditches will provide the treatment for= the run off from a portion of the roadway as it comes down Tallant Road. Mr. Maynard said there is a vernal= pool quite close to a neighboring property.&nbs= p; At this time it only has a 50’ WCD and he proposes to put a 75’ protection on that vernal pool.

Chairman Gagnon explained that this has been reviewed = before in two different forms. It wa= s a traditional plan and then a conservation sub-division plan. At the joint meeting Chairman Gagn= on said he regretfully made the comment that he didn’t like this plan. His reason was because the origina= l plan had two wetlands crossings to two separate houses and then he saw the plan = that had five wetlands crossings for eleven homes. He said that is a pretty high rati= o of wetlands crossings. He said t= hat you need two wetlands crossing to get to the first house and the third one opens up a large segment of uplands. It was the last two crossings that bothered Mr. Gagnon. He said = that it was obvious that a lot of work had been done to re-work the plan as it n= ow shows a shared driveway to the last two homes which reduces the five wetlan= ds to four. Chairman Gagnon said= that he does like the conservation sub-division plan better. Mr. Maynard said they are pushing = to go forward with a conventional sub-division plan at this point because a conservation sub-division ordinance may or may not be available until after= the March ’08 vote. It would be next fall before you could actually begin= to construct this site said Mr. Maynard. Mr. Maynard said if the ordinance did pass, I think I heard him say correctly, that he, the planning director; would be willing to have us come back in and re-engineer the project for the open space subdivision. There would be other costs but they would be one step ahead said Mr. Maynard.&= nbsp; Mr. Maynard said in the conservation sub-division there would be 1,1= 00 feet less road, 1.2 acres less of impervious surface. Also, there wouldn’t be that= last wetlands crossing at the seasonal stream which is a substantial crossing. = Mr. Maynard’s approach to going forward with this project is to meet with= all the boards and get their input so that there are no changes along the way w= hich would force extra costs on the developer by re-doing the plans, etc. He would rather draw something onc= e than have to go back and make revisions to the plans. You’re eating up time and sp= ending someone else’s money pretty quickly he said.

It was requested that the 75’ setback/buffer aro= und the vernal pool that was verified by a wetland scientist be posted with the conservation signs that get attached to the trees. Mr. Maynard agreed with that.

Mr. Maynard asked if the Conservation Commission could recommend to the Planning Board for a 24’ wide roadway rather than 26’. That would be the = only waiver that he would ask for from the Planning Board. He would prefer to ask for no waiv= ers. Mr. Gauthier said that the last ro= ad he built, Iver’s Grove = Lane, the communication between the Conservation Commission which recommended 22’ never made it to the Planning Board. Mr. Gauthier asked for a special meeting, notified the abutter’s after the fact, for 22’ wide roadway which serves 4 homes. Gauthier Way off Tenney Road= serves 6 houses with a reduced width of 20’ said Mr. Gauthier. He asks that we convey a reduction= in the width of the road to the Planning Board prior to his appearance before = their meeting.

Chairman Gagnon asked what was being proposed for the = shared driveway width. Mr. Maynard s= aid he had to meet with the fire department to get feedback from them. He said what he has drawn is 20= 217; wide. That includes any combi= nation of pavement and road shoulders. He said even if it got reduced in paved surface and 4’ shoulders you’re still talking 20’wide.&= nbsp; Mr. Gauthier explained how today’s roads in Pelham are constructed, specifically how the shoulders are constructed so that vehicles can drive on them because of the gravel/crushed rock that is put in place a= nd then covered over with a small amount of loam. Chairman Gagnon stated that his le= tter to the Planning Board would make a recommendation that “given that th= ere are four wetlands crossings and only eleven new homes we would like to see = the amount of impervious surface reduced”. He could also make a recommendatio= n that the width of the shared driveway be 12’ wide and 22’ on the bal= ance of the road. Mr. Gauthier com= mented how nice the combined meeting was between the Planning Board and ZBA and the Conservation Commission – that it worked r= eal nice. Member Edwards reminded= the Commission about the removal of a portion of the pavement that is present n= ear the existing house. Mr. Mayna= rd said the plan is to remove the old gravel driveway and then the pavement th= at is near the existing house which is in the WCD. Chairman Gagnon also reminded that= they had talked about the wetland soils that are piled to the left of the current driveway. The proposal was to= take out the gravel that was put in and redistribute the wetland soils so that t= he wetlands become connected again. Mr. Maynard said that is still the proposal and will be part of the dredge and fill for the mitigation portion of it.

WALK-IN ITEMS: Member MacKay spoke about the meeting that she and Mr. Gagnon had attended at NRPC – Wildlife Action Plan. Member MacKay was applauded f= or all her work that she had put into the preparation of the maps for not only NRPC but at the state level at UNH. Her work consisted of identifying town-owned properties as well as the wetlands. This information is invaluable for future planning. Karen was asked by the chairman if she could put together a spreadsh= eet indicating the size of the town-owned properties. Her suggestion was to list them is descending order, i.e., list the largest parcels first.

Member Lisa Loosigian gave a run-down on the water tes= ting that had taken place at Long Pond this past summer/fall. She said the phosphorus levels of = the waters that were tested were within average levels – not high and not= low and that is a good thing. Mr.= Gagnon said, to his knowledge the town beach was not closed this year. The tests were conducted at Long P= ond. Lisa will try to get in touch with a Mr. Morin who resides on Little Island Pond to see if testing was done there and that that information might be sh= ared with us.

Chairman Gagnon said that he had removed a big spotted salamander from his pool this morning.&nbs= p; It had big yellow spots on a black skinned salamander. They are not endangered said Karen= .

Minutes: There were changes to be made to the September minutes and will not be approved t= his evening.

Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary