6 Villag=
e Green
MEETING OF
Members Present: &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ;
Paul Gagnon, Karen MacKay, = ; = Absent: Paul Dadak
Lisa Loosigian, Glennie Edwards (Alt)
Chairman Paul Gagnon brought the meeting to order at <= st1:time Minute=3D"40" Hour=3D"19" w:st=3D"on">7:40 p.m. Chairman Gagnon = said unfortunately for the Conservation Commission, Jay Stearns is moving to Nor= th Carolina where his work/company is relocating him. Chairman Gagnon asked if there wer= e any interested parties watching PTV that would like to join the Commission as we are down one member again. He= said we could use 2-3 more alternates as well.
NEW BUSINESS:
Map 24, Lots = 12-215 & 221: George Jr., George= III & John Harris, Ledge Rd & Poplar Hill Rd – Proposed 36 lot subdivision with 2 open space lots to be deeded to the town of Pelham and seeking a special permit for wetland & WCD crossing.
Peter Zohdi of Edward Herbert Associates represents th= is case. Mr. Zohdi asked this ca= se be taken out of order and presented first and that he represents all three cases bef= ore the Commission this evening. Assisting Mr. Zohdi is Jim Gove, wetland and soil scientist of Gove Environmental Services.
Mr. Zohdi explained the layout of the 36 lot sub-divis=
ion. This land abuts a parcel that the
Conservation Commission purchased a couple of years ago. He explained that a road is propos=
ed
through the new sub-division then through a lot that the town owns then
connecting to an existing cul-de-sac. There are a couple of wetland
crossings in order to construct this sub-division said Mr. Zohdi; he advises
that there is a site walk scheduled this coming Saturday with the Planning
Board. He would like the Comm=
ission
members to join the Planning Board and everyone could walk and share our
comments at the site walk He said Mr. Gove is here to
answer any technical questions that we might have. Mr. Zohdi asks that this case be
rescheduled after the site walk at which time Mr. Gove will be present to go
over the environmental report. The
site walk will be at
Map 9,
Peter Zohdi represents this case. Total acreage of this site is 35.7= . Mr. Zelonis would like to sub-divi= de this into three (3) lots. This case came before the ZBA because one of the = lots did not have the required 200-ft. of frontage. The waiver was granted on both lot= s and is on a town-approved road based on the variance. Map 9, lot 9-5 is considered a non= -buildable lot says Mr. Zohdi and will be deeded to the town. The two lots (lots 9/5-7 & 9/5= -8) have a minimum of 5 acres each. The only reason that this case is before the Conservation Commission is for us = to accept the 25 acres said Mr. Zohdi. = Mr. Zohdi said that Mr. Zelonis would most likely want to develop other parcels= in town and would like to use this land donation as a so-called “compensatory mitigation” on a future subdivision that he may w= ant to develop in the future. This compensatory mitigation, according to state regulations, could be used anyw= here else in the town. Chairman Ga= gnon specifically asked that question. Mr. Zohdi referenced the Cara Estates subdivision and said at that t= ime they needed a mitigation area. Instead of creating a mitigation area on that site, the owner agreed= to donate approximately 19 acres of land on lot 9-9. This was accepted by the wetlands = bureau said Mr. Zohdi. Mr. Zelonis may not need the compensatory mitigation but wo= uld like to take advantage of that, if necessary, for a future development(s).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mitigation is not needed for the t= wo lots (7 & 8).
Chairman Gagnon said that it was certainly better to
dedicate existing wetlands as mitigation rather than try to create wetlands=
and
that it isn’t particularly successful creating wetlands. Mr. Gagnon asked if they were conf=
ident
that the state would accept this; that maybe 5 years down the road, you dev=
elop
another parcel, and then you need to use this to offset some WCD encroachme=
nt
or wetlands encroachment. Do =
you
feel the state will be comfortable with the fact that you donated this 5 ye=
ars
prior and then trying to use this for something that you are doing currentl=
y? Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Servi=
ces
spoke to the Commission and said this would be an ideal candidate for
compensatory mitigation for some of the parcels. He said it would have to be agreed=
by
the state of NH that it meets the ratio criteria. The ratio criteria have not been a=
large
enough parcel of protecting a significant wetland area and 50% of the amount
would have to be uplands. Mr.=
Gove
said that not all of this land would necessarily be counted toward compensa=
tory
mitigation. Only those areas =
of
land, all together, make up the conservation easement area that would be 50%
upland, 50% wetland and then the rest of the wetland would be an add on.
Chairman Gagnon said that the request before the Commi=
ssion
is to vote on whether we want to accept a 25 acre gift to the town as
conservation land. Member Mac=
Kay
said she wasn’t sure on accepting this gift because “What
guarantees you that we will be around at the point that you want to develop
your other land”. She a=
sked
if this was going to be some sort of legal way that it be written up, becau=
se
there is no guaranty. She wen=
t on
to say it sort of seems you are asking us to make a promise on something th=
at
we haven’t seen, such as a future development. Mr. Gove explained that
compensatory mitigation is not where it is building new wetlands, upland
preservation, or in lieu of fee payment.&n=
bsp;
He said it is a compensation after all avoidance and minimization has
taken place. Avoidance is obv=
ious,
he said – you don’t fill wetlands if there is some other way to=
do
the project. Minimization is =
a more
critical aspect of this said Mr. Gove.&nbs=
p;
Minimization essentially means that the lowest value wetlands on sit=
e,
if in fact we demonstrated that these impacts are unavoidable, and the high=
est
value of wetlands on site is to be protected. Compensatory mitigation, under
the administrative rules, is also very clear that you have to do an ecologi=
cal
study to take a look at what it is that you are impacting and then compare =
it
to the area of your chosen compensatory mitigation. Mr. Gove said what this vote does =
is it
essentially allows Mr. Zelonis, at a future date, when he has a project that
may need compensatory mitigation.
It will allow him to at least say I have gone before the Conservation
Commission and I have a parcel which may be utilized for compensatory
mitigation because the Conservation Commission has recognized its value.
Chairman Gagnon asked why the applicant wouldn’t= hold on to this piece of land until the day comes and he wanted to develop this other land, theoretically, and then you would still own it and could use it? Mr. Gove answered because= this is the key element, and I’ve had this happen: We had a site where we could demon= strate that we had unavoidable wetland impacts of greater than 10,000 s.f. It was a commercial site, rather t= han a residential site – but it doesn’t make any difference, it’= ;s the same rationale. We identi= fied a great preservation parcel. Wh= at we didn’t have was an easement holder.&= nbsp; We didn’t have a Conservation Commission who wanted to hold the easement. I couldn’t ev= en get the wetlands bureau to even accept the application until we had an easement holder. What this is saying i= s we are okay with accepting this in the future as an easement and it should als= o be included with the fact that you would be willing to be the easement holder”.
Chairman Gagnon reiterated what Mr. Gove had just said,
which was: “If you̵=
7;re going
to damage more than 10-thousand s.f. of wetlands you need some compensatory
mitigation – the mitigation could be preserving wetlands and uplands
forever. In order to preserve=
them
forever, you have to give them to somebody, but in order to give them to
somebody, you have to find a somebody and that somebody has to be willing to
take them – You’re coming to us and saying that you have this nice wetland alo=
ng
Golden Brook and you want to give it to us. Now you’ve set the stage tha=
t you
have a good piece of wetland and you’re willing to give it to someone=
and
you have identified that someone who is willing to take it, so now the first
couple of steps have been made when you do decide to develop another
parcel” Mr. Gove answer=
ed
correct. Mr. Gagnon said we a=
re in
no way giving blanket approval of any future development; we still go throu=
gh
the same rationale and the same vote, so all we’ve done is accept this
parcel. In doing this we̵=
7;ve
given you the ability to donate it to somebody. Mr. Gove said this did not encumbe=
r this
Commission or any future Commission.
What it says is that it was reviewed, it was accepted as a potential
mitigation parcel, but it does not encumber this Commission in any way to a=
ccept
the wetland impacts that may be associated with any proposal that may come
in. Mr. Gagnon said that he w=
ould
like to better understand that 50-ft. access and the bridge. His concern is that there may be s=
ome
trails out there and he wants to know how to access this parcel. Mr. Zohdi explained that we have an
access right now from
MOTION: (MacKay/Edwards) To accept lot 9-9-5, approximately 25.7 acres, to be deeded to the Pelham Conservation Commission, along with a 10-feet wide acc= ess way from Simpson Mill Road and that this parcel would be recognized for “compensatory mitigation purposes” which would enable Mr. Zelon= is to use this in that capacity in the future.
VOTE: 4-= 0 to accept.
Map 21,
Peter Zohdi represents this case. A site walk was done by Chairman G=
agnon
and member MacKay along with Luke Hurley of Gove Environmental Services.
Chairman Gagnon said he didn’t believe any of th=
ese
parcels should be developed as it’s a large wetland complex. The regulations in town are fairly
straight-forward that there be no structures in the WCD said Mr. Gagnon.
Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services said he unders= tood the Commission’s reservations concerning this lot and said it is a difficult site and doesn’t want to suggest that it is not. He says as this proposed house sits today, it essentially meets all of the state’s requirements because t= he state of NH doesn’t have any setback to it. The septic system is far enough aw= ay from the edge of the poorly drained soils and is more than enough away to essentially get a permit from the sub-surface bureau. Mr. Gove said this is absolutely a buildable area.
Chairman Gagnon advised that the Conservation Commissi= on duties are to make a recommendation to the Planning Board. He said it is possible that the Pl= anning Board would approve this and that it might even be over-ridden at the state level. Our job is to enforce = the town’s regulations. Cha= irman Gagnon said this is a difficult lot for us to approve. Mr. Gove said this has been a lot = of record for a long time, but its not like a new sub-division that has sudden= ly jumped up and essentially have a blank slate. Member MacKay asked about when the original parcel was sub-divided, was the 50-ft WCD used by the town at the = time it was sub-divided? Mr. Gove = was not able to answer the question without doing some research and come back w= ith the answer. Ms. MacKay said if we’ve had (the town of Pelham) the 50-ft WCD regulation 15 years ago = and the subdivision was created 10-yrs ago, when the land was sub-divided, they (the developer) already knew that there was a 50-ft WCD buffer and maybe it should have been sub-divided in a different configuration. Chairman Gagnon said that if this = had been an easily developed lot there would be a house on it already when all = the other houses were constructed; there must have been something that kept this lot from being developed he said.
Attorney Bill Masson spoke for the applicant. He said he’s assuming that t=
his is
a pre-existing; non-conforming lot of record that was created back in the
70’s and predates the WCD ordinance but has been subsequently impacte=
d by
those sites that were enactments done by the town recently. Attorney Masson said he has some hi=
story
of the town with a lot on
Mr. Gove said the landowner has the right to use the l=
and in
some fashion. He said there c=
an be
some safeguards put in place to protect the wetlands with regard to fertili=
zer
for the lawn, cutting of trees, etc.
Mr. Gove said the state does not have jurisdiction over town
regulations. He referenced a
similar situation on
Mr. Zohdi and Mr. Gove both asked for the Conservation Commission’s support. T= hey chose not to go before the ZBA, but they did go to the BOS to discuss this parcel. It was felt that they= should first come before the Conservation Commission to get our support. If they h= ad gone before the ZBA and it was denied it would set the stage to take it to court.
Mr. Gove said that an alternative would be to go befor= e the state and get a dredge and fill permit to cross the wetland further back on this parcel but they didn’t want to do that. They wished to avoid the mitigation issues. Member Loosigian aske= d why a plan hadn’t been submitted to show the crossing of the wetland. Mr. Gove said from the states prospective, putting the house in the WCD avoids direct impact to the wetla= nd and that is the preferred alternative.
PUBLIC INPUT: None
MOTION: = To send negative support to the Planning Board.
VOTE:
MINUTES:<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Approved Minutes of
REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION – Request for non-public session to discuss proposed purchase in accordance with RSA 91-A-A:3.
MOTION: = To go into non-public session to review possibility of acquiring a parcel of land= per RSA 91-A-A:3.
VOTE: 4-= 0 in favor.
MOTION: = To seal minutes of public session. VOTE: 4-0 in favor.
MOTION: =
To
adjourn meeting –
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary