APPROVED
JOINT MEETING
PLANNING BOARD
& CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
WORK SESSION
JUNE 26, 2000
PRESENT: Victor
Danevich, Bill Scanzani, Paddy Culbert, Alternate Gael Ouellette, Alternate
Doris Cvinar, Alternate Peter McNamara, Selectmen’s Representative Deb Casey,
Planning Director Vincent Messina, Paul McLaughlin, Alicia Harshfield, Bob
Yarmo, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde.
ABSENT: Jeff Gowan,
Henry DeLuca, Michael Soby, Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote,
Bill Cookingham
The
first guest speaker was Mark West from West Environmental who discussed
environmental impact statements. Mark
West is a wetland scientist with a background in wildlife. The goal tonight was to explain what and
Environmental Impact Study should have what to do with the study and what to do
once you get it.
He
asked the following questions.
1.
Does
a town need an EIS regulation to require one?
2.
What
type of developments should trigger an EIS?
Example - number of lots, what does an industrial park do? Is it near a wetland, river, and wildlife?
3.
What
is the goal of requiring an EIS?
Example – better understanding of the resources and impact of the
resources; focussing on a specific area.
4.
What
should an EIS cover? Should it be
flexible?
5.
How
should the Planning Board utilize the results of an EIS? Example – help improve, protect &
utilize the area
6.
What
is the difference between and EIS & other environmental studies including
Soils based lot Study Analysis
Hydro-geologic Studies
Wetland Impact Assessment
Wildlife Habitat Studies
Other Studies
Mark West then went on to show various outlines from other NH towns. Some were very simple others more intense. It basically came down to what the town wanted.
David
Brouilett & David Louis from CPI were at the meeting. Dave Brouilett explained the 25 year storm
regulations and the 50 year storm regulations.
He also explained that the biggest problem is telling the contractor what
needs to be done and the contractor telling that they’ll do only what they have
to do. He also recommended that only 1
acre be disturbed at a time.
Bob
Yarmo asked Mark West what kind of questions to ask.
Mark
West said that the board needs to generate an outline and a series of questions
that need to be answered or requirements and some forms.
Alicia
Harshfield stated that the boards should look at the whole area and not just
that particular parcel.
Victor
Danevich asked Paul McLaughlin, Chairman of the Conservation Committee, to take
a look at all the information that Mark has given and then figure out what
triggers and EIS and what is the right approach, etc.
Hal
Lynde stated his concern about an EIS done by a developer. He would feel better if the EIS came from
the town.
Alicia
Harshfield asked the Planning Board how they would incorporate and EIS knowing
that it is time constrictive?
Victor
Danevich stated that it would have to be further discussed by the board.
Mark
West was thanked for coming to tonight’s meeting by both boards.
Bernie Waugh, Chief Legal Counsel of the NH Municipal Association’s Legal Department
Victor
Danevich then introduced Chief Legal Counsel H. Bernard Waugh, Jr of the NH
Municipal Association’s Legal Department.
Bernard
Waugh stated that he had not read any of the town’s ordinances or regulations
and his opinion would only be a 2nd opinion. He said that there are 3 steps – 1) the
Master Plan, 2) The regulations and 3) the review of the application. The more factual that is done in the early
studies the better it will be. He also
stated that an applicant could reject an EIS unless it is tied to the Master
Plan.
The
Conservation Committee under State Law does not have a regulatory function (RSA
36-A). The local law can give the
Conservation Committee a regulatory under state 674-21 II – Innovated Zoning
Law. In looking over our regulations
for the Conservation Committee it was very confusing and poorly worded. This is something that should be cleaned
up. Here is a suggestion:
1)
You
must have standards and list them. In
Hanover, his hometown, some of the standards are avoidance, minimization,
mitigation measures and erosion control plan.
2)
You
must state the roll of the Conservation Committee.
Victor
Danevich asked Bernard whom he would recommend to do this.
Bernard
Waugh stated that it is a policy decision made by the Planning Board. It must decide what the Conservation
Committee does.
Bernard
Waugh was then thanked for coming to the meeting by both boards.
Victor
Danevich stated that he sees the problems as improving communications, having a
deeper insight into what must be done and the time constraints.
Alicia
Harshfield explained that meetings are now on the 2nd Wednesday and
they hear cases within 10 days. They do
have a problem with a secretary.
Victor
Danevich asked what could be done to improve and what to prepare for the
Conservation Committee.
Alicia
Harshfield said getting a copy of the Planning Board minutes would help and a
summary of what the Planning Board requirements are & their expectations.
Much
discuss between the members about many topics – one being that the Planning
Board can ask the selectmen for an extension of time to find all the answers
within reason from an EIS.
All
members from both boards stated that the meeting was very beneficial.
The
next joint meeting was scheduled for July 17th but may be postponed to July 24th. The boards will be notified.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Casey) To adjourn
the meeting.
The
meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully
submitted,
Therese
Soucy
Recording
Secretary