Town of Pelham, NH

Pelham Conservation Commission

6 Village Green

Pel= ham, NH 03076

MEETING OF March 10= , 2004 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ap= proved 4/14/04

<= /p>

Members Present &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ab= sent

Robert Yarmo, Chairman &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Frank Culbert

Marc Duquette &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Bill McDevitt, Selectmen Rep.

Paul Gagnon

Sanjay Kakkad

Shirley Wakefield (Altern= ate)

Also, Mark West of West Environmental

Chairman Robert Yarmo bro= ught the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

Mr. Yarmo opened the meet= ing by thanking the voters of Pelham for the passage of Article #5, the 3 million dollar bond for Open Space. H= e said this is a wise investment for Pelham’s future.

HEARINGS:<= /o:p>

<= /p>

Map 9; Lot 145 – Pelham Fish and Game Club, 100 Simpson Mill Road,

Wetland Violation Dredge & Fill Applic= ation

Mr. Yarmo explained that = this is a continued item for a wetlands violation in the dredge and fill application. Mr. Yarmo introd= uced Mark West of West Environmental who was present to bring the Commission up = to date on his findings. Mr. Yar= mo said that a site walk had been done with the Pelham Fish and Game and a subsequent site walk with Paul Gagnon, Amy Breault and Mark West last Satur= day.

Mr. West stated that base= d on the Commission’s request he conducted a review of the wetlands permit application for the Pelham Fish and Game Club, NH Wetlands File #2003-2516. Mr. West had gone= on the site walk with Bob Yarmo, Peter Schauer of Schauer Environmental Consultants and two members of the fish and game club on February 28^th=, 2004. The site walk was condu= cted after the issuance of the wetlands permit that was approved February 24, 2004. The basis for his review included the application packet prepared by Schauer Environmental Consultan= ts, letters from the Pelham Conservation dated January 15^th and 16th, 2004, which requested additional information and comment on the application= , a letter from Schauer Environmental Consultants responding to the comments of= the Conservation Commission and with additional revised plans, dated February 1= 1^th, 2004. My report is also based= on my findings of the site walk and a stereo photo, an aerial interpretation of wetlands. The photos were tak= en March 17, 1991 and photos taken in the spring of 1998. Mr. West said that he had had phone conversations with Frank Richardson the permitting officer for the project, Arlene Allen, enforcement officer for the wetlands bureau and Anna Ford who= is the site-specific officer for the wetlands bureau. These three representatives of the wetlands bureau were present at the original site walk that he was not invo= lved in.

Mr. West said his report = is only based on the most significant findings and most important issues. The 1991 aerial photographs was us= ed to determine where the wetland boundaries are on this property before the clea= red area of 20 plus or minus acres that was done for the rifle range. Mr. West made reference to maps th= at showed the entire range. He m= ade reference to a large drainage on the east side that separates the new rifle range from the existing ranges that are off Simpson Mill Road. They include skeet shoots for skeet shooting and other range type shootings.&n= bsp; Access to the property when Bob Yarmo, Amy Breault, and himself did = for the site walk was at the end of St. Margaret’s Drive. Mr. West conveyed the intentions o= f the Club to construct a road and parking lot in one of the locations. Mr. West said that the aerial photographs clearly showed a stone wall and some of the old logging roads w= ere evident in the photographs. M= r. West’s review of the photographs showed wetlands that are similar to = what is shown by Schauer Environmental. Another wetlands did not show up because of the cover of white pines over the area. The vernal poo= l, or what is referred to as a potential pool is just to the north of where they shoot the guns. There is anot= her wetland where the Club built a road crossing that was originally a loggers crossing. The Club had indica= ted on the permit that this was an agricultural crossing and that they upgraded it= for the road.

What did not show up on t= his plan but was seen on the site walk and what showed up on the aerial photo were t= wo small finger drainages in the southern portion of the site said Mr. West. This is the area that has been exc= avated says Mr. West. There were a l= ot of boulders and large stones and they dug out a good portion of that area. On the site walk we observed little detention basins and is shown on the plan.= There was a lot of water moving out through there and we observed a wetland boundary. On the site= walk it was found that there was a wetland at the edge of the road that had not = been flagged and went down about 4-ft from the edge of the road. These wetlands, between 3 and 4 th= ousand sq. ft., were not flagged and seem to be additional impacts and were never documented in the application. There was no indication on the application t= hat the Fish and Game Club had ever made sure they were locating this range in = the area of the least environmental impact that would have the least wetland impact. Mr. West reiterated a statement that had been made in Mr. YarmoR= 17;s letter, which was that the club should clean up and stabilize the area next= to the vernal pool as soon as possible. On the shooting mound we found very fine silt soil that during the spring thaw will drain down into that water and make that water less clear = and will have a potential impact if they lay eggs, if it is a vernal pool ̵= 1; it has not been verified said Mr. West.&nb= sp; This can be verified this spring when we go out their said Mr. West.= Mr. West recommended the planting = of white pine so as to shade the area of the vernal pool. Mr. West said there are a lot of a= reas with un-stabilyzed soils out there. It’s not as a big an issue where it is flat, but where you have steep slopes draining down into the wetlands you should have protective temporary detention basins. T= hey have a few but they could be overwhelmed and they may need additional sedim= ent traps to protect the wetland resource area. This should be done as soon as pos= sible said Mr. West. There was supp= ose to be a site specific application was going to be applied for but it hasn̵= 7;t been applied for yet. Mr. West recommends, that as soon as they are able to, to loam and seed the areas th= at have been finely graded and to also use other protective measures. Where they have dug into silty soi= ls they will be transport into surface waters, get into streams and degrade wa= ter quality. Mr. West believes the mitigation area is adequate for the impacts that they have shown with regar= d to constructing wetlands. There = are a lot of shrubs and plants going in there.&n= bsp; Mr. West said that the Conservation Commission should get reports th= at document that it was built the way that they have shown it, with all the ingredients that they have used. Mr. West said that it should be a successful ________ wetland mitigation. It needs to be bu= ilt properly and monitored. Mr. W= est said because of the significant impact of this area, additional things such= as conservation easements on sensitive resource areas and buffers associated w= ith them. You may want to consider requesting this as they are large landholders, and because they have a major wetland system tributary that goes into Golden Brook in order to protect th= em for the future so these type things do not happen in the future said Mr. West. Mr. West said he reques= ted a search of permitting for this parcel between dates of 1991 and 1998 and no permits could be found.

Mr. West said his rough e= stimate of the impact on the wetlands is about a half an acre, 300-ft long and when= you add the pond in there is potentially a half acre that has been affected. He suggested, as a Commission, tha= t the Commission request information on all impacts on the applicant’s property. Mr. West makes refe= rence to the permitting branch and the enforcement branch and recommends that the Commission send this report that documents additional wetland impacts. In this case, they issued the perm= it before the enforcement investigation was completed. Arlene Allen is conducting the enforcement investigation. Th= is information on these additional impacts is very important to notify her about. The enforcement issue = may have the ability to hold up the implementation of the issued permit. The permit was issued on 2/24/2004= . When I got the permit said Mr. Wes= t, my first question to Bob Yarmo was where are the findings and fact – this was on a Saturday. When I cal= led the wetlands bureau on Monday they had not issued the findings and fact and issued the permit on March 1^st.= Our site walk was on February 28^th, a Saturday. There are only 7 findings, and fin= ding #7 was that the public hearing is waived with the finding of the project im= pact will not significantly impair in their resources of the eco wetlands system. Typically, you would = have a public hearing on a wetlands impact.

Based on the approval of = the permit being issued, 2/24/2004, you have 20 days from that date to ask for reconsideration. The deadline= would be March 21^st to request reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration must specify all grounds on which future appeals may be based and should include information that was not available to the department when the decision was made. Items not available at = the time of the issuance of the permit would include stereo aerial photo interpretation that shows two fingers of wetlands going through the property and there was no alternative analysis and no information that indicated that this was the least impact alternative.

Mr. Yarmo said that when = they went out on the site was there was an area in front of the first shooting station near the vernal pool. South of that is where the discrepancy is. Mr. Yarmo asked Mr. West to speak to that. Mr.West pointed to an a= erial photo that indicated any evidence of a wetland because there are a lot of p= ines their. On the site investigat= ion we saw similar soils as if to have been cut down in this particular location.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Even the sub-soil appeared to be n= ice bright soil. I did not find a= ny evidence of a wetland being there. Apparently the previous consultant, Oakhill Environmental, felt that there might have been a wetland there.&nbs= p; Mr. Yarmo said originally in August of 2003, there was 47,470-ft of impact. The application said = there were 39,000. It was not a wet= land when they cleared it said Mr. Yarmo. It may be a wetland now he said.&nb= sp; Mr. West did not see any evidence that vegetation had been started.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The wetlands bureau’s jurisd= iction starts the minute a wetland is created.

If you file a Motion for Reconsideration, the person who issues the permit, Frank Richardson, review= s it and makes a decision whether he accepts the motion, reconsiders the permit = or denies the motion. If he acce= pts the motion he may say we are going to reinvestigate. If he denies the motion you then a= re left with your second option which is to appeal to the counsel. The wetlands counsel hears the appeals. They are made up of members of the public, a fish and game member, a wetlands scientist; itR= 17;s a broad board.

If it goes before them th= ey would have to consider if they even want to consider your 2^nd motion, = and if they did they would hear it. There would then be a public hearing at which time you would present your new information. If they= agree with your appeal they would then send it back down to Frank Richardson to l= ook at it.

Mr. Yarmo stated that on = the site walk the club indicated that they want to build another fishpond somewhere = in the future. The new roadway w= etland violation could not be part of this violation. Mr. West said if the wetlands bure= au knew that they were going to do all these impacts, they would have required them to do it all as one permit; that is in the rule. They do not piece-meal impact permits.   It is a separa= te issue said Mr. West.

Mr. Gagnon said he was mo= st concerned with what is the big picture.&nb= sp; I’d like to know what is the plan, where is this pond going to= be put and when is this mitigation going to be done and when is the stabilizat= ion going to be done. I’d l= ike to hear the plan and have some degree of confidence when we’ve done all = this that in six months from now we aren’t going to find out that another group of volunteers rents a bob cat and cut down a few trees, put in a culv= ert, and did it all again. How can= we can some degree of assurance that this isn’t going to happen again, especially since you have found that this has happened perhaps twice and you’ve only looked at a small section? Who knows what has happened if we = had looked at all the property and what may have happened in the past. Mr. West said that you could only = use stereo photos to really know what is going on. You can flag wetlands today, that = is no problem said Mr. West.

Mr. Yarmo asked how the m= embers felt about sending a letter of appeal to Dr. Frank Richardson to stay their permit until they resolve all of the enforcement issues. All members were in favor of sending the letter of appeal.&nbs= p; Mr. Yarmo said that none of the members of the fish and game club we= re present this evening, which he was really disappointed in, he didn’t = feel the options of discussion or suggestions is in order at this point. Mr. West asked Peter Schauer if he= was going to be present at this meeting and did not get an answer that would indicate that he intended to appear at this meeting. Mr. Yarmo brought up the fact that= the permit said that the club had a well thought out plan and then later said volunteers had done the work and did not know they were in a wetland.

NO PUBLIC INPUT

It was agreed by Commi= ssion members to apply for reconsideration: Vote: 5-0 (Marc Duquet= te, Shirley Wakefield, Paul Gagnon, Sanjay Kakkad and Chairman Bob Yarmo).

It w= as voted to send a second letter requesting enforcement action on the construction o= f a road in the pond, 5-0: (Marc Duquette, Shirley Wakefield, Paul Gagnon, Sanjay Kakkad and Chairman Bob Yarmo).

Map 39, Lot 6-176, = 128 Realty Corporation, Mammot= h Road, Dredge & Fill Application

This plan was presented b= y Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates. This was previously heard at a Conservation meeting. This has been before= the Planning Board and Mr. Brouillet states that they have been working with Go= ve Environmental Services who provided the environmental impact assessment report. This is a 9-lot subdi= vision off of Mammoth Road at the Massachusetts state line. The impact on the wetland area is approximately 270-ft in off Mammoth Road. Gumpus Pond Brook is a tributary a= nd meanders through this parcel of land. There is approximately 12,881-sq. ft. of wetland impact. The developer is installing an over-sized culvert, 12-ft wide by 4-ft high according to Mr. Brouillet. This parcel is in a 100-year flood= plain and the plan calls for compensatory storage. As part of the wetland impact, the= y are proposing volume storage and incorporating a lot of the recommendations mad= e by Gove Environmental assessment in protecting the wetlands. Mr. Brouillet said the state requi= res 10 to 1 ratio mitigation for every 12,000-sq.ft. Mr. Gagnon said that this is a lit= tle less than 5 acres of conservation land.&nb= sp; The 3 southern most homes would all have a conservation easement in their deed, and the 3 easements collectively would make up the 5-acres piece. The over-sized lot is = about 12 1/2-acres says Mr. Brouillet.

Mr. Gagnon brought up the= issue of the long driveway on the most southern lot and that the driveway followed right along the WCD. Mr. Brou= illet said that possibly something could be worked out such as an easement over another piece of land. Mr. Ya= rmo didn’t think that would happen as this is a very busy area with the s= tore that is right their. Mr. Brou= illet said that possibly the driveway could be eliminated; that there would be sh= eet drainage and that there wouldn’t be any curbing and explained a ditch line. The large area that wil= l be used for mitigation is mitigation for flood plain calculation and wetland impact. Mr. Yarmo’s con= cern was the area of the cart path and wanted to know where it was on the plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Yarmo was of the understanding= that that was the narrowest point to make the crossing. Mr. Brouillet explained that the c= rossing was as far south as they could get. Mr. Gagnon again said that he would like to see the long driveway th= at runs parallel to the WCD be eliminated.&nb= sp; Mr. Gagnon reminded Mr. Brouillet that he said he would consider an eight-lot subdivision as opposed to a nine-lot sub-division.

Mr. Yarmo asked for comme= nts from the Commission’s thoughts on the mitigation area. He explained that anything over 10= ,000 sq. ft. you have to mitigate and this parcel is 12,000-sq. ft. Mr. Brouillet said that after 30 d= ays the area affected would be restored with plantings of seeds; which might be= a wetlands seed or a wildflower mix and will depend on the recommendations of Gove Environmental.

Mr. Yarmo asked members w= hether they preferred an easement or deed restrictions for the protection of the wetlands. Marc Duquette comme= nted that a conservation easement would sufficiently protect that land unless someone violates that easement, that it is part of the property. He asked why would the town want t= o take possession of a small chunk of land when it’s protected by the easeme= nt.

Mr. Yarmo said there item= s of concern are: Combine the two = house lots to lessen the exposure to the sensitive areas and have some legal protection of the large area. Mr. Yarmo said he wasn’t really comfortable with commenting in favor of a dredge and fill in that location, but Dave has explained that to his satisfaction.

PUBLIC INPUT: None

MOTION: (Sanjay Kakkad/Shirley Wakefield) = To recommend to the Planning Board to combine the driveway of the two lots to lessen the impact on the WCD that are located most westerly and southerly on the plan and to provide conservation easements on these parcels, also to gi= ve a positive note on the dredge and fill.

VOTE: 5-0 in favor of the motion.

Map 38, Lot 1-116, Cormier & Saurman, = Sherburne Road

Mr. David Brouillet repre= sents this case. Mr. Brouillet said originally there was a letter requesting that this case be on the agenda wh= en it was believed we might be impacting some wetlands. Since Gove Environmental has done further studies they confirm that the area is not in the jurisdiction of the wetlands and is being withdrawn from the agenda. Mr. Yarmo commented to Mr. Brouill= et that Conservation has not seen a set of plans and neither have a set of pla= ns been submitted to the Planning Department.

Map 29, Lot 7-116, Timothy Peloquin, Promised Land Surveyor, L.L.C. for Mary Frances Re= nner=

Discussion of the property and development opportunities. Amy Breault, Paul Gagnon and Chairman Bob Yarmo did a site walk. Sanjay Kakkad said he had also sto= pped by and checked out this site. This parcel is located on route 38 just south of the Getty Gas Station and north= of Charlie’s Pizza. The description given by Promised Land Surveyors was that there was going to be= an 8-ft. retaining wall in the WCD or the wetlands in order to construct the w= all. The area would then be filled. The building would actually be in = the WCD said Mr. Yarmo. The grade slopes down drastically and was paced off at about 70-ft. to the wetlands s= aid Mr. Yarmo. This parcel abuts = Beaver Brook and is also in a flood plain. This is a pretty substantial wetland says Mr. Yarmo.

Mr. Gagnon said that their conclu= sion at the site walk was that the retaining wall and part of the structure woul= d be in the WCD and the parking lot would be partly in the WCD and there is only= a 20-ft right-of-way in the WCD and is actually uplands. The proposed use was= for a farm stand to sell vegetables and flowers, etc.

Mr. Yarmo said that the Commission should send them a letter saying that we would not be in favor of compromis= ing the WCD in order to build a retaining wall, to build a road to build a building. All agreed to submi= t a letter to Promised Land Surveying with the Commission’s findings as stated above.

Nashua Regional Planning Commission, presentation by Angela Rapp, Environmental Planner=

Ms. Rapp advised the Commission a= bout block grants available to communities equally. NRPC usually chooses one criterion= that they believe fits the needs of all the communities. Deb Waters and Paul Gagnon agreed = to attend a session at the NRPC on Monday, April 5, 2004 from 7 to 9 p.m.=

On May 19^th, from 6 to= 9 p.m. there will be a presentation on Low Impact Development given by Larry Kauffman who is coming to NRPC from Maryland.

Ms. Rapp said there are 4 watersh= eds in Pelham. They are: The Greater Merrimack located near Gumpus Pond, Beaver Brook, part of Harris Pond and Barrett Brook. Little Island Pond is considered p= art of Beaver Brook watershed.

The Commission’s membership will be up-dated and forwarded to Ms. Rapp.

MINUTES: 1/16/02 – Motion to Accept (Marc Duquette/Sanjay Kakkad) VOTE 3-0

&= nbsp;                  1/14= /04 – Motion to Accept (Sanjay Kakkad/Marc Duquette) VOTE 5-0<= /span>

2/11/= 04 – Motion to Accept with corrections (Sanjay Kakkad/Mark        =             &nb= sp;            =            Duquette) VOTE 4-0

MEETING ADJOURNED: 10:00 P.M.

                =             &nb= sp;            =        Respectfully submitted,

Glennie M. Edwards

Recording Secretary