TOWN OF PELHAM
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
JANUARY 12, 2000
Members
Present: Members
Absent:
Alicia
Symonovit Hennessey - Chairperson Alicia Harshfield
Debbie
Waters - Alternate Rick
Cummings
Bill
Cookinham William McDevitt, Selectman
Don Paquin
Paul
McLaughlin (arrived late at 8:20 p.m.)
The
chairperson, Alicia Symonovit, called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
Article 21 Update
Debbie
Waters began by announcing that the Budget Committee had endorsed Article 21
and that the Conservation Committee was very pleased. She stated it was an important warrant article for the town’s
development in that the Town of Pelham needed to begin purchasing land to set
aside for conservation and open space.
Discussion
It was also
noted by Debbie Waters that the Board of Selectmen had accepted the donation of
a parcel of land on Debbie Drive for conservation. The committee wished to thank the Executrix of the estate and the
family for this donation and setting an example by their donation.
Alicia
Symonovit noted that the Budget Committee increased revenue to 75% (over the
original 50%). She stated there was
$187,000 in penalties in current use tax.
Although it was not voted in by a narrow margin last year, the committee
is optimistic that it will be this year.
Alicia Symonovit added that the $187,000 from last year had decreased
taxes by a mere 9 cents.
There will
be open space meetings stated Alicia Symonovit which the public is welcome to
join as well as an Open Space Committee, or help out in any way possible.
Alicia
Symonovit explained that Prime Wetland Studies had been conducted by students
from UNH as their senior project. Five
sites were selected, four of which will be placed on the ballot for
designation; they are Little Island Pond, St. Patrick’s Convent School,
Sherburne Road Bog and Sherburne Road Emergent. The fifth wetland area behind PHS off Marsh Road did not have the
required percentage of hydric soils.
Bill Cookinham observed that the UNH students had done an excellent job
with these studies. Alicia Symonovit
added that the proposed changes in wetland ordinances would be discussed with
the Planning Board during a working session on January 20, 2000 at the Town
Hall, 7:30 p.m.
Hearings:
Map
42, Lot 34-2, 34-33, Wetland Crossing
Wesley
Aspinwall of Edward Herbert Surveyors presented a septic design of these lots
located at the north end of Hillcrest Lane on the easterly side of the
road. He stated that they had looked at
this plan about 3 years ago and that the property was owned by Iris
Therriault. Mr. Aspinwall pointed out
the wet area in front of the lot on the map provided which showed a 50 foot
WCD. He stated that in order to get to
building portion of the lot, 190' across was needed with no direct wetland
impact. The surveyor added that no
wetland permit application was needed but he was present to explain to the
committee the impact within the WCD.
Alicia
Symonovit inquired if a fill-in was needed or just a crossing. Wesley Aspinwall stated that gravel
Conservation Committee Meeting Page 2 January
12, 2000
Hearing,
Map 42 Wetland Crossing continued
would be
placed and eventually pavement. He
stated the owner had acquired a small triangular parcel
in the back
of the lot and that distances needed to be maintained. Bill Cookinham asked what was in the back of
the parcel to which Mr. Aspinwall responded there were highlands. Bill Cookinham reiterated that there were no
wet areas and Mr. Aspinwall responded there were not. Alicia Symonovit asked about drainage. Mr. Aspinwall stated that pavement would be needed regardless of
turnaround location. He added that a
well would be needed in WCD but might possibly go outside of that. Alicia Symonovit inquired about
vegetation. Wesley Aspinwall responded
it was largely pine woods. Don Paquin
inquired about the existing water area which Mr. Aspinwall said drained back to
the street; a culvert would handle any overflow. Mr. Paquin asked if this would affect the driveway. Mr. Aspinwall stated it would not even with
the culvert. Bill Cookinham noted that
there was a pond at the end of Hillcrest Lane where it was low. Alicia Symonovit suggested a site walk by
the committee. Mr. Aspinwall said he
would be happy to accompany the board members.
Debbie
Waters asked about the width of the driveway and was told by Wesley Aspinwall
that it would be 10 feet. Debbie Waters
observed that there would be a 1900 square foot impact on WCD and asked about
the WCD presently having pines. Mr.
Aspinwall responded yes and added that there was an old farm road currently
where most of the driveway would be for the dwelling to be constructed. Alicia Symonovit inquired whether the
existing vegetation would be maintained.
Mr. Aspinwall said yes. Alicia
Symonovit asked about placing mulch around the well. Mr. Aspinwall said it would be as well as hay bales. He added that the driveway would most likely
be paved eventually.
Bill
Cookinham asked about an existing dwelling on the other side of the lot. Wesley Aspinwall stated that there was a
dwelling on 10-32 to the south and open space to the north. Alicia Symonovit recommended a site walk
again and Bill Cookinham added it could be done on the coming Saturday.
Debbie
Waters requested that Wesley Aspinwall explain hydric B for the public and the
minutes. Mr. Aspinwall noted that it
was the equivalent of poorly drained soil with various soil criteria having a
saturated effect most of the year. He
added that standing water would be hydric A.
Debbie Waters asked about vegetation in the hydric B area and Mr.
Aspinwall replied it was wetland shrubs primarily. The committee agreed to do a site walk on Saturday, January 15th
at 7:30 a.m.
ML 7
- 10, Prime Atlantic, Old Lawrence Road
Alicia
Symonovit stated that the hearing on the relocation of the cellular tower was
withdrawn and would likely return for another meeting at a later date.
Map
37, Lot 6-250, Elston Estate Subdivision
Doug Lees
of Dana Perkins Engineering presented regarding the construction of a detention
area within the WCD and distributed maps to the committee on this proposed six
lot subdivision. Mr. Lees noted that
the Planning Board had required revisions.
He stated the logical place for the detention pond would be the low area
in the parcel which is off Marsh Road near Greeley and behind Jean Guy’s auto
business. Each lot would have an
individual well and septic system. Mr.
Lees explained that the detention area was designed as a wet pond with extra
storage for a 72 hour detention factor and emergency overflow. Bill Cookinham inquired how it would be
built. Mr. Lees indicated a hole with a
culvert. Alicia Symonovit asked how
extensive was the wetland area existing over the property line. Mr. Lees responded it was quite large with a
creek that would come down into the culvert.
Doug Lees indicated the position on the map and distributed drainage
report to the committee.
Debbie
Waters asked what would be the distance from the treatment area to the road and
Mr. Lees
Conservation Committee Meeting Page 3 January
12, 2000
Hearing,
Elston Estates continued
answered it
was approximately 135 feet. Debbie
Waters requested Mr. Lees to describe how the detention pond would treat the
run-off. Doug Lees stated there would
be a storage area below outlet pipe to settle out the flow then exit to the
pond, taking approximately 70 hours to drain.
Debbie Waters inquired what material exists in the proposed pond to
filter run-off and Mr. Lees said it was natural loam and grass. Don Paquin asked about the lifespan before
it is filled with sediments and Mr. Lees noted there was a lot of space with 2
feet allowed. Debbie Waters asked where
the catch basins would be located and Mr. Lees pointed the location out on the
map. Debbie Waters asked how effective
the detention pond would be. Doug Lees
stated it would solve 60 - 75% of the situation.
Alicia
Symonovit asked whether the Planning Board had given site specifications for
the dwelling to be constructed on this lot.
Doug Lees answered no. Don
Paquin noted the house would be very close to the WCD and Mr. Lees stated it
would be about 6 feet away. Debbie
Waters observed that the owner’s backyard would be the WCD and Alicia Symonovit
requested that it be moved as far away as possible. Mr. Lees responded that it could be moved further.
Alicia
Symonovit asked Mr. Lees if the existing vegetation in front of proposed
detention pond would be cleared. Mr.
Lees noted that this was likely given the thick growth of evergreen which was
not attractive. Alicia Symonovit added
that the committee usually requests signage for WCD area and Mr. Lees responded
that this could be done.
Bill
Cookinham stated that this was mostly an open space area with perhaps 10 feet
of trees. The committee agreed to a
site walk at 7 a.m. on Saturday, January 15th, when the Planning Board will
also be present. The committee informed
Mr. Aspinwall that they would therefore attend his site walk at 7:45 a.m. that
day. All agreed.
Debbie
Waters queried whether a vote would be taken at the time of the site walk and
stated that she would like to hear from CLD prior to that. Debbie Waters explained that since the
detention pond is only 75% effective on removal of road solids, she would
prefer input from CLD and inquired what happens with the remaining 25%. Doug Lees responded that it would go
downstream where there is a brook and culvert.
Bill Cookinham offered that there could be a request for no salt usage
in that area.
Debbie
Waters stated the committee might want to recommend to Planning Board that they
do a site specification requirement for
location of dwelling on Lot 6 since much of it is within the WCD. Alicia Symonovit asks if other lots are
heavily treed. Mr. Lees pointed out the
open space and treed areas on the map.
Alicia Symonovit advises that leaving the trees intact will help absorb
some of the water. Doug Lees proposes
that catch basins with deep sumps can be added to increase that 75% effective
rate and that hay bales can be added.
Debbie Waters requests that signage be placed on Lot 6 and corner of Lot
7 to mark wetland area and requests that the developer do minimal cutting on
parcels. The committee thanks Doug Lees
for his presentation.
Bill
Cookinham makes a MOTION to vote on the proposed detention pond at the time of
the site walk on January 15, 2000 if a quorum of Conservation Committee is
present to do so. Don Paquin seconds
the motion. All in favor: Alicia
Symonovit, Don Paquin, Debbie Waters, Bill Cookinham (4-0-0). Motion passes.
Presentation
by Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Four
members of the Project Team for Tennessee Gas Pipeline present to inform the
committee of the project which is coming through the Town of Pelham and offers
the following overview:
Conservation Committee Meeting Page 4 January
12, 2000
Tennessee
Gas Pipeline continued
There are
19.3 miles of replacement pipeline to be placed which begins in Dracut, MA and
ends at the meter station on Sanborn Road in Londonderry, NH, passing through
Pelham. There are two lines going
through Pelham in an existing 40 foot right of way; 8 inch lines were placed in
the 1950's and 12 inch lines in the 1980's.
This project proposes to remove the 8 inch lines and replace them with
20 inch pipes. A gas generated power
station is being built by AES needing gas which is the reason for this
project. In order to supply the gas,
larger pipes are needed in existing trench.
A temporary 50 foot right of way for a total of a 90 foot easement will
be required. In one year’s time, the
additional footage will revert back to the landowners and the permanent
easement will be what is already owned by Tennessee Gas Pipeline. This project requires Federal and State
approval. A copy of the Federal filing is
available for anyone to view at the Pelham Town Library and a public hearing will
be had at some point in the future. Letters
have been sent to 114 landowners indicating their rights. The project will take 5 months, starting in
the spring of 2001 and ending in October, 2001. Work will be in progress six days per week at 10 hours per day
which translates to a couple of days per homeowner for actual
construction. Crew will be brought in
by bus from staging facility near Pelham Industrial Park where pipelines will
be stored. The cost of the project is
$32 million and involves 6.82 miles through Pelham with 18 stream crossings, 2
ponds, 2 crossings at Beaver Brook, 28 wetland crossings and 17 road
crossings. The two major road crossings
will be at Nashua Road and Route 38.
Bill
Cookinham asks in what year in the 1980's the 12 inch pipeline was laid. The Project Team responds that it was done
in different stages but pipelines went into Pelham in 1980-81. Debbie Waters comments that a letter was
sent about a year ago by Tennessee Gas Pipeline to the Town to which the
Conservation Committee responded in detail and asks if anyone has the
letter. The Team answers that they have
the letter but not with them at this meeting.
A representative of the Team notes that the State filing will be made
next week and the committee will receive a wetland permit application. Debbie Waters remarks that a former
committee member and expert in the field had reviewed the matter and assisted
in the drafting of the letter response.
She would like that gone over point by point between the committee and
the Team. Some discussion is had among
the members of the committee and the Team as to when and how this can be
accomplished and it is decided that the Team will be placed on next month’s
agenda at which time they will address all the points in the committee’s
letter.
The Team
notes that they would like to coordinate all of this for the State applications
and filings and that many discussions have been had to date with the Department
of Environmental Services on minimizing
the impact to the wetland areas. The
Team notes that it is important for the committee to see State filings to
assess their input against the questions raised in the committee’s response
letter. To facilitate the next meeting,
the Team will send a response by mail prior to the meeting noting clarifying
the points to be discussed. The Team
environmentalist notes that some documentation may already be held by Alicia
Harshfield that would be helpful to the committee but they would like to be assured
that the information was current. He
suggests that the committee members may want to walk the pipeline area at some
point in the future.
Debbie
Waters remarks that it might be prudent to mark off a fair amount of time at
the next meeting when Tennessee Gas Pipeline will return. The Team states that it will work around the
committee’s schedule to accommodate them for discussions needed. Debbie Waters requests business cards from
each of the Team members for the committee records. The Team representative left additional reports for committee
members absent at this meeting.
Alicia
Symonovit inquires if there are any questions from the public. Paul McLaughlin arrives late and informs the
committee that he is familiar with Tennessee Gas Pipeline project and asks if
committee has information on crossings.
Debbie Waters tells Mr. McLaughlin that a comprehensive discussion will
be had at the February 9th meeting.
Conservation Committee Meeting Page 5 January
12, 2000
Tennessee
Gas Pipeline continued
Alicia
Symonovit asks the Team how the crossings will be done at Beaver Brook. The environmentalist on the Team explains
that an equipment crossing has to be created by placing pipes in stream, gravel
or other material, so equipment can go back and forth. He further explains that there are several
methods for cutting trench and laying pipe such as a wet crossing. This is when construction crew cuts the
stream while water is flowing and drops the pipe in but there can be potential
sediment difficulties. If there is a
lot of flow, they may have to flume and thread pipe underneath. Standard procedures will be used and these
will be addressed in State filings, a copy of which can be shared with the
committee. Another option is to dam and
pump around to create a dry spot for laying of pipe.
Debbie
Waters asks what stage Tennessee Gas Pipeline is at in Londonderry and whether
the plant has been approved as yet. The
Team presenter responds that the plant has received approval but there is a
group called Londonderry Neighborhood Coalition (LNC) that has asked
requested it go before the Supreme Court.
LNC has asked that the Supreme Court view this matter in March and it
will be determined if there is a case.
The Team states that the power plant is not their project and if for any
reason it is not built, then their project for new pipelines will not be
necessary. AES has given Tennessee the
critical in service date of October 1, 2001.
Alicia
Symonovit asks if the easement is 50 feet only in some areas. The Team presenter states that it is 40 feet
as a permanent easement but more area is needed to construct. She states again that the ownership reverts
back to the homeowner. Tennessee Gas is
only seeking temporary easement for this project. Paul McLaughlin states that when this matter came before the
Planning Board, there were questions about the easements and asked if this had
been addressed. The presenter stated
that in the 1980's the easements were apparently not defined and that was being
worked on now. Title searches are being
done on the existing easements to see what parties need to be dealt with in
terms of negotiating. Tennessee Gas
will be negotiating with some individual property owners. The committee thanks the Team for their
input and will continue discussion at the next meeting.
The Team
environmentalist asks the committee if they had stated that the wetland area
behind the school will not be designated as prime. The committee notes that this is uncertain as not all of the area
was studied. Debbie Waters noted that
there might be some appeal at the State to get some clarification since the
criteria was very high, other than the hydric soil issue.
Map
13 and 14, Lot 4-137, Rivier Project
Alicia
Symonovit notes that this is a 4 lot subdivision with proposed future lots and
land that was donated to Rivier College.
She explains that this is not a hearing but only for discussion and
listening. Jim Gove presents from Gove
Environmental Services. Mr. Gove notes
that it is a potential six lot subdivision along Mammoth Road and Valley Hill
Road. A fair portion of the land has
been flagged with property lines being somewhat uncertain at this point. The area is about 7+ acres with an existing
house on Mammoth Road. Lot 4-37-4 is
indicated by Gove as having well drained canton. A lot of excavation took place there in the past as is shown on
soil maps. There is a seasonable water
table that is between 1 and 3 feet down in the subsoil material left. Mr. Gove explains there is another area
with deeper water table that has been excavated out at some time and graded
over. The topsoil was removed. There are some wetland areas which may have
been encroached upon during excavation in the past but it appears that they are
relatively undisturbed. Mr. Gove notes
that this land was used as a borrow area at one time. Grading was done well and in some cases not so well. There are areas of rocky debris that were
left from excavation and some poorly drained areas. He points out the places where the land was ditched and where a
bridging is proposed. Mr. Gove states
there will be no wetland impact if this is done.
Bill
Cookinham asks if the area near ditch, where there is drainage, had been
man-made and if it was the
Conservation Committee Meeting Page 6 January
12, 2000
Rivier
Project continued
result of
the ditch line being made. Jim Gove
responds says there are clearly some poorly drained soils which takes much time
under natural conditions. He notes the
steep boundary and notes that a portion was apparently excavated down to the
water table. He doesn’t know the answer
but notes that there are 4 inches of muck in this area which can occur fast
under man-made conditions. He notes
that the trees in the area are at least 50 years old. Mr. Gove knows it was a highly excavated area.
Debbie
Waters asks how many houses are proposed and Mr. Gove responds there are 4
frontage lots with two side by side
driveway crossings with bridge over the ditch.
Debbie Waters asks Mr. Gove to describe the back area. Mr. Gove says it is very thick in some
areas with old apple trees with mixed vegetation. There is also a big pit area and relatively steep slopes as you
move up hill. Debbie Waters asks the
purpose of some hay bales indicated on page 3 of the plan. Mr. Gove said they are to mark off the edges
to keep construction within area so as not to create wetland violation. The plan also shows silt fence. Debbie Waters asks about a roadway noted
and Mr. Gove states it is to show an access road off Mammoth Road for the
balance of the land in the back. Debbie
Waters inquires if Mr. Gove is going to be asking for an access road there as
well and Jim Gove states it’s undecided at this point.
Alicia
Symonovit asks about trails in the area that may have been researched. Jim Gove states that he noted some trails
which may have been an old access into gravel pit area in back. He has not yet done site specific mapping on
that area. Alicia Symonovit remarks that
there may be some established trails and asks whether they can be maintained. Debbie Waters asks when Gove is going next
to the Planning Board. Mr. Gove
believes it is February 7th. Debbie
Waters states that the committee has some time since the Planning Board will
not be ruling that night with a first presentation.
Alicia Symonovit
asks whether the large parcel in the back is buildable since there are some
very steep areas. Mr. Gove notes there
are wetlands and steep slopes but that it is 75% buildable. Mr. Gove will note that trails may be a
concern and Alicia Symonovit indicates she will gather more information. Debbie Waters notes that the land is across
from Muldoon Park and that in the back of this parcel is land owned by New
England Forestry. She says that Rivier
College who owns the front land was agreeable to extending trails since it was
across from Muldoon Park. Don Paquin
states that it would be nice to connect with Raymond Park as well. Jim Gove says he will speak with Peter Zohdi
about it and that it may be possible to create sustained trails. Paul McLaughlin asks if there are any
indications of rare and endangered species on the property and Mr. Gove states
there are not in this area.
Alicia
Symonovit requests that Jim Gove keep in mind the discussion of trails and he
agrees to pass it on to Peter Zohdi at Edward Herbert Surveyors. The committee thanked Mr. Gove.
Discussion:
Phase II of 100 acre woods
Jim Gove
presents a map showing 19 lot subdivision with the first part of a two part
environmental impact assessment. There
are vast differences and part two addresses the residue of the property. Mr. Gove asks the committee to view page 12
of the first part showing two prototypes.
The area discussed is by Honey Lane which has a mixed hardwood pine
forest and another which is thick young white pine area. Mr. Gove indicates a young wetland area
stating his recommendation that a 50' WCD should be proposed. A natural heritage inventory data search was conducted which found a valuable
flood plain wetland area with unique plant community and species. Under the first Phase of subdivision,
provisions were made to donate conservation and wetland areas to the Town.
Mr. Gove
asks committee to turn to page 13 of second report on the residual area. He notes that a fair portion of the area is
wetlands with a fair diversity. Much is
poorly drained soils. Mr. Gove notes
that under Phase I there was much discussion about connecting Noela Ave. with
Irene Drive which he does not
Conservation Committee Meeting Page 7 January
12, 2000
Phase
II, Honey Lane continued
recommend. There are issues of public safety, health
and welfare. Mr. Gove recommends that
Honey Lane end in a cul-de-sac to maintain wetland areas.
Alicia
Symonovit asks whether the residue area is buildable and Mr. Gove says it may
be but at this time, nothing is being proposed in residue in terms of
housing. There is no impact since there
is no proposal. Debbie Waters asks if
Honey Lane ends in a cul-de-sac, would there be impact in any other area of
this plan. Mr. Gove states there is no
direct wetland impact on any of this plan.
He indicates that it is his opinion from an environmental standpoint
that Honey Lane should not be a through road.
Debbie Waters asks, if Noela Avenue did not go through, what would be
the buffer impact of that configuration of the subdivision. Mr. Gove says it would be reduced by
half. He refers the committee to last
page of report where WCD is shown and the residue. He wrote into report what is functionally there but not a
recommendation for Honey Lane to go through.
Mr. Gove explains that during Phase I, the Planning Board stated he must
make some connection to Noela Avenue.
Debbie Waters states her understanding that with configuration
presented, the impact would be somewhat on Honey Lane to the buffer and a small
impact on Robin Road to the buffer.
Gove states that is correct.
Jim Gove
explains that he does not believe that Noela Avenue can go through now. Debbie Waters asks where the Planning Board
is now proposing that Noela go through and Mr. Gove indicates on Honey
Lane. He explains the alternative is
going around the wetlands and not through the wetlands. Debbie Waters seeks to confirm that Mr. Gove
recommends a connection not be made from Honey Lane to Noela which he states is
correct. She further reiterates that if
Honey Lane is to go through, the buffer impact would be twice as much as if it
didn’t and Gove agrees. Debbie Waters
asks if Jim Gove will return to the committee at a later date and he responds
yes.
Debbie
Waters asks if that residual area will be deeded to the Town since there are no
plans to build upon it. Jim Gove
responds that he does not know. Alicia
inquires if there are any other questions and thanks Mr. Gove for his
report. She asks if he remembers how
much of a buffer zone was given in the first Phase. He states 100 feet in some places and 200 feet in other places
but most of property lines went to the top of the banks of the flood plan. Mr. Gove recalls there were three pools
connected which were deeded to the Town and man-made ditches were constructed
with bridges.
Paul
McLaughlin asks if it is the same ownership being dealt with in Phase II as
Phase I and Mr. Gove says yes, it is Thomas Mahoney. Mr. McLaughlin states that there had been some assurances made
that certain areas would be cleaned up and asked if they had been. Mr. Gove stated he had not gone down there
to look himself but was told by the owner that the car was pulled out of the
hole and a bottle dump covered. He
will make a note to go check on those areas.
Mr. McLaughlin said he recalls that some residents on Irene Drive were
concerned during Phase I about the effect of their properties having
water. He asks if there might be some
effect from Phase II. Jim Gove responds
that he will find out if there has been any detrimental impact on Irene Drive.
Alicia
Symonovit inquires whether Mr. Mahoney sells the lots to individuals and Mr.
Gove says he believes so; that some were built by a son or son-in-law or a few
other builders. One lot was sold to an
individual who hired his own builder to construct a home. Bill Cookinham states there is one lot left
unsold and that he believes a superb job was done in answer to Paul
McLaughlin’s question earlier.
Debbie
Waters states that she was speaking with someone at NRPC recently and it was
mentioned there was a trail of porous tar which was not available in this part
of the country. She asked Jim Gove if
he had any knowledge of that and he states he believes there is, citing
Victoria Park in Salem as an example of a site made out of that porous
material. He states it is available but
expensive and Debbie Waters asks if it might be available for a roadway. Mr. Gove does not know for certain but has
been informed that it is not a viable solution. Bill Cookinham questions if it is durable material to plow and
Mr. Gove says it cannot be
Conservation Committee Meeting Page 8 January
12, 2000
Phase II, Honey Lane
continued
plowed. Debbie Waters wondered if there was some way
to reduce the impact to the environment but get the road in for emergency
vehicles. Bill Cookinham suggests the
size of the road might be reduced from 24 feet as there would be tendency to
drive slower. Debbie Waters suggests
that might be a recommendation for the committee if the road has to go through
that area. The committee thanked Jim
Gove and asked him to thank Mr. Mahoney.
Final Discussion
Alicia Symonovit asks
committee members to think about projects and voice any special interests. She asks that the members review December
minutes before next meeting. Bill
Cookinham advises Paul McLaughlin of the site walks scheduled for the coming
Saturday. Alicia Symonovit advises
members of a special conference on January 22nd regarding the $12 million state
appropriation for open space if anyone is interested in attending. She adds the public is invited to attend as
well. The committee discussed a treed
area of fire damage which Bill Cookinham went to view. Alicia Symonovit remarked that the Forestry
inspector said two or three acres may need to be cleared.
ADJOURNMENT
Paul McLaughlin made a
MOTION to adjourn. Bill Cookinham
seconded the motion. All in favor: Alicia Symonovit, Debbie
Waters, Don Paquin, Paul McLaughlin, Bill Cookinham (5-0-0). Motion passes.
Meeting adjourned at 9:54
p.m.
Minutes recorded by,
Kathleen A. Carr
Recording Secretary
Note: These minutes were taken from a video taping
of the Conservation Committee Meeting.
No recording secretary was present at the meeting.