Town of Pelham, NH

Pelham Conservation Commiss= ion

6 Villag= e Green

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

<= /p>

MEETING OF 5/11/2005 = &nb= sp; = APPROVED 8/17/05

Members Present:

Bob Yarmo, Chairman &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Members Absent

Paul Gagnon &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Amy Breault

Paul Dadak = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; =

Shirley Wakefield (Alt.)<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:4'> &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Glennie Edwards (Alt.)

Conservation Chairman Bob= Yarmo brought the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

HEARINGS:

Map 15 & 22, Lots 8= -86, 88 & 89 - Pelham Estates, Tina & Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision

This case was heard by the Commis= sion once before; there was a site walk with the Planning Board. Mr. Yarmo did not attend the site = walk. Paul Gagnon and Paul Dadak did attend the site walk along with the Planning Board. They were at the site = a good two (2) hours. The site was w= alked very thoroughly but nothing new was uncovered environmentally detrimental.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It’s pretty sandy soil and l= argely logged with 10% of the trees left standing. The soils have been disturbed and graded. The stumps have all b= een pulled. It is hard to tell wh= at the original lay of the land was said Mr. Gagnon. The site walk took Mr. Gagnon and = others right down to Golden Brook wetland. Mr. Gagnon said he was looking for areas that looked like they had b= een filled, but saw none. Mr. Gag= non pointed out that the site walk was done at the wet time of the year. Mr. Yarmo asked for comments about previously discussed wildlife corridor and what the Commission could do to preserve some of that.

Dave Brouillet of Edward Herbert Associates represents this case and said that he had gone on the site walk = and that there is one wetland impact area.&nbs= p; Mr. Gove was present at this meeting to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Mr. Brouillet presented a map that showed the prime wetland boundary. The nearest area of disturbance wo= uld be 100-150 feet said Mr. Brouillet. The buffer increases as you go north to northeast. Mr. Yarmo said that a couple of we= tland buffers had been removed when he had walked the property and hoped that they would be restored in this process. Mr. Yarmo said that The Berger Group had done the environmental impa= ct study and asked Mr. Brouillet and Mr. Gove if they had seen Berger’s letter? Mr. Gove answered tha= t they had not seen the letter. Mr. = Yarmo said there were a couple of items in the letter that needed to be discussed. Mr. Yarmo referred= to page 4 under conclusions and recommendations. It read: “The potential impacts of the development in context with map aquifers or public and private wells.” Mr. Gove of Gove Environmental Services said that “If the Planning Board wanted them to look at the aquifers, I guess that’s okay, but from the standpoint of density, he didn’t think they had the kind of density here that would typically be anything other than the best management practices that is alre= ady recommended by DES”.

Mr. Yarmo read from the Berger le= tter a second concern, which is: “More detailed information on the water quality mitigation measures.” Mr. Yarmo th= ought this might be drainage and roadway drainage that’s going to enter the prime wetland. Mr. Brouillet said t= hat all appropriate paperwork has been submitted to Desfresne & Henry, the town’s engineering consultants. There is a mitigation area that’s being proposed said Mr. Brouillet and that is the wetland crossing of the roadway because it’s within the 100-year floodplain. Basically it is re-grading the land so that there is a net balance s= aid Mr. Brouillet. There are two = treatment swales planned and are out of the WCD.

The type of culverts to be used w= as discussed. Mr. Gove said it i= s very difficult to get a turtle to go through a culvert. The problem is that it is a dark p= lace, not an inviting place; turtles do not normally crawl into holes where they cannot see a fair amount of light to see if there is a predator there. In experiments at the University of Amher= st, turtles would rather go up over the road than through a dark culvert, even a big culvert, where there might be a fox at the other end said Mr. Gove. Mr. Yarmo suggested that an oversi= zed culvert might be the answer. = Mr. Gove said that he couldn’t tell (us) that that would work in creating= a safe atmosphere for the amphibians and turtles. A three-sided culvert was discusse= d and as Mr. Gove explained, has an open bottom. A mulch berm will be used in the project according to Mr. Brouillet. Another concern in the Berger report is: “The integrity of the corrid= or has been compromised by vegetation clearing within the WCD”. Mr. Yarmo said we would like to se= e that restored. The area of concern= is the northwest boundary at the prime wetlands. The temporary crossing is going to= be removed and area will be re-vegetated in the WCD along the stream said Mr. Gove.

Mrs. Wakefield asked about the suggestion in the Berger report that references a conservation easement alo= ng the western edge of the property that abuts the prime wetland and existing town-owned land and along the stream that flows east to west. Mr. Gove explained a conservation easement and asked if the Conservation Commission will be the holder of that easement. Mr. Yarmo said Mr. = Gove has a good point, that if an easement is granted the Conservation Commission must go out and walk the property on a yearly basis, make a report to the t= own and report if there is or is not any encroachments. Although this puts a burden on the= town, it provides the town with an additional level of protection. Mr. Yarmo said this parcel i= s next to a prime wetland, which was voted on by the town voters, and I think we should take the measures to protect it and recommend to the Planning Board = that we do go along with a conservation easement in that area. Mr. Yarmo asked Mr. Gove about doi= ng a deed restriction rather than an easement.&= nbsp; Mr. Gove said he was only responding to the letter, and that if you = talk with the Wetlands Bureau, they prefer a conservation easement because it was written into their administrative rules and in part they feel that deed restrictions can be broken. M= r. Yarmo asked Mr. Gove about having both a deed restriction and a conservation easement. Mr. Gove replied th= at a deed restriction has less protection than a conservation easement. Mr. Brouillet was asked to point o= ut exactly where the conservation easement might be placed. Mr. Yarmo concurred that anyone bu= ying a home with a conservation easement can still use the property but they just can’t clear it. Mr. Yar= mo questioned Mr. Brouillet with regard to an access point for someone wanting= to put a canoe into the waters of Beaver Brook. He would like to see included acce= ss from the road into this area. There was a question of whether or not the town owned this small particular trian= gle. It was stated that the small piece of land that Mr. Yarmo was concerned with actually is privately owned. = Mr. Yarmo stated that there is a violation on that parcel that’s pending = with DES. One of the solutions mig= ht be donate to the town in order remedy the situation.

Mr. Gagnon asked about the specif= ics of the suggested 100-ft easement all along Golden Brook and whether that wo= uld be recommended to the Planning Board? Mr. Yarmo said that would be his position. Mr. Gove said they are now in negotiations with the state and they do need to hear from the conservation = commission. Mr. Gove said that “Our clie= nt is prepared to do the measures that we have talked about, which is essentially restoring the WCD along the sides of the stream and look at putting a 100-ft buffer off that property line adjacent to Golden Brook corridor whereas it’s a 5,000-ft impact to the wetlands”. He asked that the Conservation Com= mission put this into the recommendations to the Planning Board and also to the Wetlands Bureau. Mr. Dadak as= ked if Herbert Associates would copy the Conservation Commission on anything that = was presented to the Planning Board.

PUBLIC INPUT: No input from the public.

BACK TO BOARD: Mr. Yarmo said he had a addressed a couple of comments: Restore t= he fill in the wetland areas; incorporate the mulch berm; restore any WCD that= has been removed; identify any areas that have been removed and restore them and the conservation easement along the border of the prime wetland. The Conservation Commission is wil= ling to accept that conservation easement and may need volunteers to monitor it.= Mr. Gove said invariably the Wetla= nds Bureau asks them about having written documentation to that affect, that th= ere is an easement holder. He ask= ed that this be put into the minutes so that it can be considered official documentation for the Wetlands Bureau.&nbs= p; Mr. Yarmo said that this would be no problem because we now have a stewardship group that has been formed and are pretty active.

A member of the audience, Barbara Stadtmiller, spoke up and requested that she be put in touch with the stewardship chairman, as she would like to be a part of this working group. Glennie will put her in touch with Deb Waters, chairman of the stewardship committee.

Mr. Yarmo said he wasn’t comfortable with the knowledge that there was a person who tried to develop that parcel years back and now the wetland delineation had changed and ther= e was some filling. Mr. Yarmo said = he would like to go out to this parcel and look at the perimeters in question = by this person, as he had missed the site-walk. Mr. Gove had no problem with Mr. Y= armo looking at the site again and said that he would like to see this move along and have the recommendations from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Yarmo asked about the dredge a= nd fill. He said this is a major impact dredge and fill, and is there a need for a public hearing? Mr. Gove explained that he had got= ten a letter and that the Conservation Commission should have been copied regardi= ng this. Some of the things are = very simple that are being requested said Mr. Gove. For instance, the National Heritage Inventory has identified certain areas out there and they are a thousand fe= et away from this site. They req= uested exactly where the prime wetland boundary was based on what was voted on by = the town, based on the plan.

Mr. Gove said both Pelham Estates= and landowner Roger Ploof to resolve ownership of a parcel that abuts this proj= ect have retained him.

MOTION: (Paul Gagnon/Glennie Edwards) R= 20;To recommend that the wetlands that have been disturbed, and the buffer that’s been removed, be identified and replaced; secondly, that a conservation easement of about 100-feet along Golden Brook be identified and worked into the deed and that the Conservation Commission is willing to acc= ept that easement of monitoring that responsibility; that every effort to keep = the culvert as short as possible and the erection of a mulch berm”.

VOTE: 5-0 in favor of this motion.

Map 39, Lot 1-53 & 55 – LRL Properties, Sherburne Road, Proposed four lot Subdivision

Mr. Dave Brouillet of Her= bert Associates represents this case. Mr. Brouillet explained that this is a consolidation of 2 lots; 1-53 that has frontage on Sherburne Road and lot 1-55 which is essentially land-locked except for a small frontage on Mammoth Road. The proposal is for a 700-ft cul-d= e-sac road and subdivides into 4 new lots and then re-subdividing. Part of the consideration to minim= ize impact is to construct approximately 450-feet of retaining wall to get the roadway in. There are two (2) wetland crossings for driveways and the bonus is 15 plus acres of high and = dry land said Mr. Brouillet. Mr. Gagno= n said this is a tough parcel to develop, that when he was on the site walk you wo= uld have to step from rock to rock in order to stay dry and that there is stand= ing water in places. Mr. Dadak sa= id one of the comments was to keep the 50-ft. right-of-way but lessen the paved ro= ad in to the cul-de-sac so you have less paved on Aspen Drive.

Mr. Brouillet said they a= re proposing a standard 26-ft wide roadway, which is the town’s standard. If there is a recommendation by this board they could look at minimizing to a 700-ft cul-de-sac road. Mr. Yarmo sa= id we would make a recommendation to decrease the size of the road to 22-24 feet = for impermeability reasons. Mr. Y= armo asked Mr. Brouillet about whether or not their client would think positivel= y on a conservation easement because the buffer to the pond is important. Mr. Gagnon’s concern is the development of this site could be an awful mess because there are going to = be an awful lot of wet wheels. He believes that a ton of berms are going to be needed. Mr. Yarmo said we could make a recommendation to the Planning Board that additional site inspections by Go= ve Environmental or Herbert Engineers or the appropriate party, since it is so= wet and a sensitive area, that there needs to be control and methods of the excavation of the dredge and fill be applied. Mr. Brouillet said this project wi= ll require a NEPA general construction permit that requires a storm water pollution prevention plan. In addition, it requires a site-specific approval from the NH DES. Mr. Gove explained the “mulc= h in a sock” works better than hay bales and silt fence and is accepted in m= ost all instances at the state level. He offered to incorporate this into the plan. Ms. Wakefield asked how high the r= oad is going to be, and how much fill is going to be needed in order for the road = to be dry? Mr. Gove said this is= one of those odd situations, that what is shown on the plan is the only place w= here you can put it (i.e., roadway). Mr. Brouillet said there is a culvert that comes under = Sherburne Road that adds to the dra= inage that comes through this property. Mr. Brouillet said there is an average fill of about four (4) feet, = that to deal with the ground water affecting the road construction, typically th= e town may require an under-drain that is built inside the road box system and kee= ps the water out of the ground. = Ms. Wakefield asked how they planned to keep erosion from the water from happen= ing under the road? Mr. Yarmo said there isn’t a lot of flow there. Mr. Gove said you can see the flow= pass, especially in the springtime. Mr. Yarmo asked if the cul-de-sac could be pulled back closer to Sherburne Road? Mr. Brouillet said he didn’t= think so because of the driveway impacts. Mr. Gove requested that mulch berms be used in conjunction with the = Filtrix System (mulch in a sock).

PUBLIC INPUT: No public input.

BACK TO BOARD: Mr. Gagnon asked if the developer/= owner would be interested in selling this piece of property to the town? He said there would be no wetlands crossings, no 84,000 sq.ft. of disturbance. Mr. Gove said he hadn’t been coached on this by his client, but said he supposed if the town wanted to o= ffer him enough money he probably would be interested. Mr. Gagnon said that Mr. Gove migh= t want to mention this to his client. Mr. Yarmo said there might be a combination of two (2) lots and maybe a driveway out to Sherburne Road with the town picking up a portion to add to the town park that is already there. He felt that there mig= ht be some formula that works. Mr. = Gove will offer this suggestion to his client.&= nbsp; Mr. Yarmo said it would be a nice addition to the park. Mr. Gagnon said that we did check = to buy this piece when it was on the market but the real estate agent was asking f= or more money than we could afford to pay.

MOTION: (Paul Dadak/Paul Gagnon) to reques= t a mulch berm with Filtrix and less pavement (consider 22-24 foot pavement wid= th) to reduce the impervious surface.

VOTE: 5-0 to accept this motion and rela= y this information to the Planning Board.

Map 9, Lot 145 & 146, Pelham Fish & Game, Inc., After-The Fact Dredge & Fi= ll Application

Mr. Yarmo said there is q= uite a history that began about 2 years ago. He asked Mark West to comment on this. Mr. West said the original issue w= ith this project was that they, Pelham Fish & Game Club, performed work wit= hout a permit for a large new range that they were building. It was an 800-yd. range that they constructed and it had a violation issue that they are applying for an after the fact permit. Mr. West came before the Conservation Commission as part of the review process of that pe= rmit and had made comments on and the permit was issued. Mr. West said that Mr. Yarmo had intervened on behalf of the Conservation members to ask for reconsideration= of that approval. The F & G = have been put on hold due to findings of additional violations in the form of a significant road crossing. Mr. Yarmo gave some history on this site to other members of the Commission. Adjacent to the first violation at= the rifle range there appeared to be another wetland violation because a road h= ad been pushed through where the pond was created. That application is what we just g= ot a month or so ago and that is why Mark West is here tonight. We are summarizing our comments to= DES about this crossing said Mr. Yarmo. Mark had attended the site walk.

Mark West commented that = his application packet did not have the bigger size plan that shows the restora= tion plan. He showed where the cro= ssing of the wetlands was located on the map.&nb= sp; He said the 1991 photos showed no road and photos in 1998 showed a road. Part of the concern abo= ut this most recent permit was making sure that the Fish and Game dealt with a= ny and all violations at this time instead of finding out later and having thi= ngs dragged out. When this second violation was found, the Fish & Game Club submitted this second application. When the Fish an= d Game constructed this road they did not have a design engineer to Mr. West’= ;s knowledge. There is also a cu= lvert with beaver activity. The pla= n that Mr. West commented on showed that water was backed up thousands of feet into the wetland. He stated that w= hen you build a road and you don’t size the culvert correctly, that it becomes a dam and that is what this road did. In addition, since then, beavers h= ave blocked the culvert and dammed it even further and forced the wetland and n= ow trees are dying as is what happens when beavers dam up things. A site walk was done that included Dorrie Wiggins and Arlene Allen from the NH Wetlands Bureau. Dr. Frank Richardson reviewed the original permit for this. He = has now moved to the seacoast area and Dorrie Wiggins is now covering this permit. Arlene Allen is the enforcement officer in the state who is reviewing the violation. Mr. West commented on a large nest= ing by blue herons about 250-ft upstream. Mr. West said their discussion included the fact that Dorrie thought= the permit may have been issued without calculating those additional impacts (2 finger-like wetlands) and without collecting a fee for those two (2) impacts. The Wetlands Bureau = agrees with Mr. West that whatever permits were issued for here should be the final permit. Ms. Allen asked if th= ere was a master plan for the site, that she didn’t want to see them, the Fish and Game Club, come back for more permits down the road.

Mr. Yarmo asked about the violation for the roadway and expressed that to disturb the area now would = lean toward more damage. Mr. West = said that the fill is now 125-feet wide for a 15-foot wide road. The whole amount of this impact is estimated to be 41,000 sq. ft. said Mr. West. The area to be restored is 28,000 = sq. feet. The area to remain is 13,268-sq. ft. The total impa= ct is 41,000 sq. ft. Mr. Yarmo aske= d Mr. West what the impact number was for the previous work at the rifle range. Mr. West thought it was retained at 39,649-sq. ft. There was an additional impact of 7,000 sq. ft if the two fi= nger portions are included. Mr. We= st said the remaining 19,568 sq. ft. of wetlands was cleared and stumped but w= as going to be reseeded and allowed to come back. Mr. West read what it said exactly, which was: “Dredge and = fill, a total of 39, 649 sq. ft. of wetlands of which 20 thousand and 80.7 sq. ft= are permanent impacts for site work associated with the construction of a 600-y= d. Shooting range stationed with firing berms. The remaining 19, 568.8 sq. ft. of cleared and stumped wetlands will= be seeded and planted and combined with another creative wetlands on the site”. They are retaini= ng 33,000 sq.ft. said Mr. West. = He was asked by Mr. Yarmo what that means. Mr. West said that is what they say they want to keep, filled. It was agreed by Mr. West that the= total impact was 87,000 sq. ft.

PUBLIC INPUT: Mr. Kolodziej, 32 Robinson Lane, Pelham, is an abu= tter to the Fish and Game Club’s land.&nb= sp; He said he went to the NH Fish and Game Department some time ago bec= ause he has a bullet in his house. He said the man next door also has a bullet in his garage door. He is concerned with the length of= the rifle range. He says he is to= o close to it now. He said his grands= on is an environmental engineer who works for the state of California and when he was here he said don’t let them dredge and fill there. Mr. West reminded Mr. Kolodziej th= at the work had been done illegally and that was the purpose of this meeting, to s= ee that some corrections are made so that the water does not back up.

Mr. Yarmo tried to clarif= y Mr. Kolodziej’s comments about his land being land-locked, etc., and that= he tried to get permission from the state to put in a road, etc. Mr. Kolodziej seemed adamant that = the Conservation Commission should have fined the Fish and Game Club for their violation(s). Mr. West advise= d Mr. Kolodziej that if there is a safety issue that he needs to go before the to= wn to lodge a complaint. Mr. Kol= odziej said he was improperly notified, that he had received a letter from Peter Schauffeur’s office in Bow, NH. When he wrote back to Schauffeur the letter was returned, saying it = was an unknown address. Mr. Yarmo= noted that Schauffeur’s office is now located in Loudon, NH. Mr. Yarmo requested that Mr. Kolod= ziej stop by the planning office to show the planning director of the improper address and to make a copy for Conservation.

Mr. Yarmo asked Mr. West = what is required of us, the Conservation Commission, at this point, anything? Mr. West responded that he believe= d our request for reconsideration was raised at a public hearing at the state level. He suggested that a follow-up letter be sent and ask what are the next steps that are expected = to occur as a result of this after-the-fact application. Mr. West said there were some erosion concerns when they were on the site walk, and that they need to do = some erosion control even though they are on stand-by in construction. Mr. Yarmo feels that Pelham Conser= vation is out of the loop, that there have been site walks that we were un-invited= to and says it is very upsetting that they have the option of not inviting the Conservation Commission.

Mr. West said the newer p= ermit state that “you are allowing the Conservation Commission to access the site and review the wetlands”. Mr. Schauffeur used a 1997 permit/application and that wording does = not appear on those earlier applications. The large wetland impact was built between 1991 and 1998. Mr. West had contacted the Wetlands Bureau to do a search for permitting and they said in their preliminary rev= iew they did not find a permit associated with this. They indicated to us on the site w= alk that they didn’t know about all these wetlands issues; they werenR= 17;t aware of any permitting said Mr. West.&nbs= p; Mr. West said that the trees that had been cut at one of the wetlands were taken out by hand and not with a skidder as there were no marks indica= ting a skidder was used. There are= a lot of downed wood in one of the wetlands said Mr. West. The second wetland is much wetter = and that is where the road was built. It also appeared to be a man-made pond within the wetland. Mr. West said he estimates the imp= act area to be 300-ft. long at the width of the crossing.

Mr. West said as a Commis= sion we should request information on all the impacts on the applicant’s property. The only way to get= it is by getting stereo pictures he said. The jurisdiction of the State of New Hampshire goes back to 1969 said Mr. West. There is a wetland enforcement on t= he original impact says Mr. West. These are two separate entities, the permitting branch and the enforcement agency. Normally, they resolve all enforcement issues before th= ey issue a permit. In this proje= ct case, they issued the permit before the enforcement investigation was completed. Arlene Allen is conducting the enforcement investigation.&= nbsp; This information, on these additional impacts are very important and= we should notify her of them. It’s Mr. West opinion that the Commission, at the very least should send this report, along with documents and photography that documents additional potential wetland impacts. The enforcement issue may have the ability to hold up the implementation of the issued permit. Mr. West said we received the wetl= ands impact notification of 1/24/04. At that time Mr. Yarmo asked where are the findings and facts. When Mr. West had contacted them o= n Monday, they had not issued the findings and facts. They issued them on March 1^st=. There were seven (7) finding= s. Finding #7 was that the public hearing is waived with the finding that the project impacts will not significantly impair the resources of the wetland = eco system.

Mr. Yarmo asked Mr. West = what are our options. Mr. West advised= that if the Conservation Commission applies for a Motion for Reconsideration we = will have to provide new information and information that indicates that the per= mit was issued without proper information or review of all of the rules. Mr. Richardson will review it and = makes a decision as to 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 this. If he denies the motion you then are left with a second option which is to appeal to the counsel, the wetlands counsel. They hear appeals. The= y are made up of members of the public if they are a fish and game member, a wetl= ands scientist, etc. It’s a = broad board. They would consider whether to entertain the second motion. If they do, they would then hear i= t and you would probably have to go up to a public hearing. At that public hearing you present= your information. If they agree wi= th your information they would then send it back down to Frank Richardson to look at it. If Frank Richardson says I don’t care, or if the council says we disagree, the motion for reconsideration is denied. The final appeal must be through the court.&nb= sp; Mr. Yarmo said that on the site walk it was stated that they intend = to make another fishpond somewhere. Mr. West said that was in the future. The Fish and Game Club needs a master plan so that we know that things are going in at the appropriate location said Mr. West.

Mr. Yarmo said the new ro= adway wetland violation would not be part of this application. Mr. West said if the wetlands bure= au knew that they would have all these impacts they would require that it be a= ll done as one permit, or at least outlined as one permit. That would show all= the impacts. That is in the rules= ; they don’t piece-meal impacting said Mr. West. Mr. West told Mr. Richardson that = if you have a violation that is not in the area that he reviewed as part of this permit, it’s not necessarily an issue that would be cause for reconsi= deration on this permit.

Mr. Gagnon’s concer= n(s) is what is the big picture, what is the plan, where is this pond going to be located and why was that road put into another pond and when is this mitiga= tion going to be done and when is the stabilization going to be done? Mr. Gagnon would like to see a pla= n and would like to have some degree of confidence that when this is all done tha= t in six months we won’t hear of another group of volunteers going in and renting a bobcat and cut down a few trees and put in a culvert and do this = all again. He asked when do we ha= ve some degree of assurance that this isn’t going to happen again especi= ally where it has now happened perhaps twice and Mr. West has only looked at a s= mall section. Mr. Yarmo said the d= ecision that needs to be made tonight is whether we want to appeal that permit.

Meeting adjourned at 10:3= 0 p.m.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfu= lly submitted,

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary