CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 5, 2007
Present: Chris Giordano (Chairperson), Judy Jervis, Sheila Johannesen, Jason Holder, and Ron Comeau
Also present: Curt Springer, Dave Knight, Walter
F. Baird, Ron DiCarlo, Julie DiCarlo, and Carol Baird
The
meeting opened at
This
was a joint meeting to discuss the latest draft of the Easement. The other boards invited to attend were
Heritage Commission, Zoning Board, Forestry Committee, the Board of Selectmen,
and the Recreation Committee.
The
meeting started with a discussion of the Easement. Janet had compiled, from the tapes of the
last joint meeting, the latest changes and suggestions. Chris asked of all those present for any more
comments or concerns. Mr. Springer
pointed out two things on page one in the “Whereas...” section. The first “Whereas” speaking of the property
being established as a statutory town forest: he thought that sentence had been
deleted, and it was agreed that it was.
The last “whereas” speaking of timber harvesting: it will be changed to
say that some of the property has a history of timber management.
Mr.
Knight noted the tone of Audubon sounds different than years ago, instead of a
partnership that is supposed to teach us and help us, we’re “putting money in a
bank and being charged interest to keep it there.” He pointed out in the easement areas that concerned
him, for example on page 5, #2.D.2 in which, if a change is to be made, Audubon
reserves the right to approve the guy who will make the change, then they want
money to review the suggestions, and then reserve the right to accept or reject
the suggestions. He said similar wording
is found in five other places in the document.
In his opinion, it seems every time we turn around, they have figured
out a way to pick up cash from us.
Mr.
Knight explained that for everything but a “walk through” we have to pay them,
which Chris agreed was an undesirable arrangement. Chris suggested we highlight the places in
the document and let Audubon have the right to review the document but at their
own expense, not the town’s expense. Mr.
Knight will go back through the document and find the sentences in question.
There
was a discussion about a review of the plan to take place every 10 years. Judy expressed that she had no problem with
that as it will keep the town “on their toes,” and keeps things current. However, the current wording of the document
states that Audubon reserves the right to choose who will review the plan, a
licensed professional forester of their choosing will do the update, and then
the town will pay that person.
Another
concern that Mr. Knight had was the wording of “best practice.” He explained that he thought it best for the
town to decide what the best practice is for itself. Curt said he had the same impression when he
read the document. Mr. Springer
explained that there may be good people now who know what’s best, but there’s
no telling if in twenty years there will be knowledgeable people with the proper
credentials saying what the best practices are.
Mr.
Knight also brought up his concern that with the current wording, if the town
decides to do anything, however small, for themselves, it has to be reviewed by
Audubon which adds another layer of bureaucracy which is taking things too far,
as if they are in charge, and we are paying them to keep our money.
Chris
asked if the board is in agreement so those two concerns will be brought to the
attention of Audubon.
Mr.
Knight pointed out where in the document (page 19, #14.A.) it spoke about any
additional activities or actions that require the easement holder resources,
any fees will be paid by the fee owner.
Judy pointed out that a 30 day notification would be given to the town
first, so before they will do anything or look at anything, they will talk to
us first. Mr. Knight pointed out that
for every change, a review has to be done with them, and a fee is charged for
every review.
Judy
read from 7A, “Disputes” and Mr. Knight pointed out that if it is in the
document that we pay for everything, there is nothing to dispute.
Mr.
Knight asked if he’s the only seeing 14A and 14B as being an open-ended deal in
which they can charge us anything for anything they want to do. That particular point will be reviewed and
discussed with Audubon if necessary.
Mrs.
Baird’s thoughts were, if Audubon decided to charge some amount for a certain
service, notice would be given to the town.
If we disagree, referring to 7A, we would initiate some dialog to
resolve the issue. If that didn’t work
then we would proceed to arbitration or mediation. Chris said this is something else that would
be clarified with Audubon.
Mr.
Knight brought up another concern of his, referencing page 19, #11.B, regarding
eminent domain. In regards to dividing “the
balance of the land damages recovered,” he wondered where their interest is in
this. Mr. Springer expressed the opinion
that this is probably standard wording in all easements. Chris said this is another issue to ask
Audubon. It was asked if an itemized
list of questions can be sent to Legal.
Chris said it can be sent to Legal that way. And he said he was sure we could ask Audubon
as many times as we need until it is understood.
Mr.
Knight expressed that he felt with the way the easement is written, the town is
giving away too much. He said that we
had anticipated a partnership in which Audubon would visit for educational
purposes. He cautioned that if we want
Audubon to come down and teach us about bird blinds and such, they will do
that, but we’ll pay for it.
Mrs.
Baird asked what the Commission thinks of anything noting the historical aspect
in the Easement. She had several notes
and started with page one with the “whereas” section. She suggested adding a paragraph that would
state the property is or may be subject to the town’s historic district
ordinance. She added this is not to
enforce, but just to note the importance of it.
Chris said there may be another place that’s better to note that
particular item.
On
page 5 under 2.D.i and 2.D.ii, she wanted to add that the property is subject
to the historic district ordinances as applicable. There was some discussion about how 2.D.i and
2.D.ii seem to be the same thing and appropriate changes, noting Mrs. Baird’s
concern, would be made to clarify the wording.
The Roman numerals would be redone, adding a fifth Roman numeral.
She
noted also on page 6, #2.E.i.a.6 the word “known.” She said there may be things of historical
nature not yet discovered as there is a lot of land out there. There was some discussion about how to word
this particular part of the document.
Some suggestions could be interpreted that whenever a new discovery is
made, the stewardship plan would have to be updated. Chris said that as things are discovered the
list of known artifacts will be updated, thus making a previously unknown item
a known item, so the wording here was left as is.
She
mentioned on page 9, # 2.H that there is no mention of any historic district
ordinance. There was some discussion
about the fact that the Stewardship plan is mentioned several times in the
document, reinforcing its importance, and if it wasn’t helpful, the document
wouldn’t keep referring to it. The same
wording would be inserted here, requiring compliance with historic district
ordinances which will add clarity to the document, eliminating gray areas.
There
was some discussion about putting the same sentence in so many places,
especially where it’s so blatantly obvious that something should be in
accordance with zoning ordinances. Mrs.
Baird expressed her desire to avoid boards fighting amongst themselves over
controls and such and her desire is to make the Easement document perfectly
clear, for now and for future generations.
It
was decided that the same sentence: “in accordance with all applicable current
zoning ordinances,” would be added to #2.I.i.e and 2.K.
The
discussion continued with Mrs. Baird referencing page 13, #3.F. “parking.” She mentioned, as it is written, parking is
an exception to excavation sections and structures sections and that’s why it’s
important to add that sentence there.
Chris said that parking is not a structure until it is hot-topped. Mrs. Baird pointed out that parking requires
review under the historic district ordinance and all these things were done to
preserve the visual character and that’s why they require review. Chris asked the board if they agree to add
that sentence there and they agreed to add it to #3.F.
Mr.
Knight had another question about page 21, #13.F. The way he reads it, if the town ever decides
to do something different with the property, there’s no way the town can buy
their way out of it, no matter what the cost.
He wanted to make sure that, as a group, we recognize this. Mr. Springer expressed a desire to have this
particular item highlighted when it goes to legal for review.
Mr.
Knight expressed his opinion that he wouldn’t trust anyone from Audubon being a
legal authority on what can be done in the state of
Mr.
Baird asked to have clarified #3.B on page 11 under ““Reserved Rights.” It was explained that the original Tuckertown
(or Tucker) Road is not in the easement.
Any branch roads or trails off of it are. Mr. Baird asked who has authority to make new
roads. It was explained that the
selectmen have authority to designate where new roads will be for safety
reasons. Any board can have a trail
design made, which would then be approved by whatever board has authority at
the time, which could be Forestry, Conservation, or whoever is voted by the
town as having that authority. Mr.
Knight said that this is Audubon’s authority to police us in our actions and we
don’t want them to be able to say what we can or can’t do. We need the ability to do what needs to be
done. The discussion then concluded with
the fact that the property can’t and shouldn’t be used for any commercial gain,
since that would then make the town subject to liability.
Mrs.
Baird noted #1.B that states providing public motorized and non-motorized
access is listed under “Purposes.” She
wondered if that should be listed under reserved right. She mentioned this because of the recent
damage done by ATV’s on the property.
There was a general concern that making public access a purpose, the town
would not be able to restrict certain modes of transportation later should the
need arise. Mrs. Baird noted that
providing public access should be in the document somewhere, but it’s possibly
in the wrong spot: it should be in “Purposes” rather than “Reserved Rights.”
Judy
mentioned that this particular phrase, “motorized and non-motorized,” was taken
out of one copy of the easement, then put back in. Mr. Springer noted the wording of such should
be a specific item about which to ask the town lawyer. It was agreed that the town wants the right
to say yes or no to certain types of public access. Chris mentioned having something under
“Reserved Rights” that restricts ATV’s if they don’t respect the trails. It was noted by Mr. Knight that there is
nothing in that section that restricts ATV’s.
He said if you read 3.D carefully (page 12) it says nothing about
snowmobiling, ATV use, etc. Mr. Knight
summed up the conversation thread by saying, “If we take it out of the
‘purpose,’ which I think we should because it almost makes it sound like we
have to provide it, and put it into ‘“Reserved Rights”’ that we can provide it
if we choose to provide it, we’d be better off.”
The
original draft easement was mentioned and the fact that it forbade all public
motorized access except for those with a handicap license. While that draft is no longer a
consideration, Mr. Knight cautioned that the intent of that should not be
lost. He noted that if we sign on this
particular wording in this document, we set up limitations that will not allow
us to reverse a decision later.
Mr. Knight proposed the wording under “Purposes” be that we provide
public access, and then under “Reserved Rights” we state exactly what access is
okay, so that we’re never held to having to provide access in whatever
form. This would give the town the right
to say, for example, that a particular area is off limits for whatever reason
for whatever length of time. Chris asked
the Commission what he thought of rewording 1.B to say, “To provide public access
on the Property, which will allow the general public to hike, hunt,
cross-country ski, observe wildlife, and participate in other low-impact
outdoor recreational and educational activities; and” The Commission all agreed
except Judy who said she needed to think about it. Her concern is the about the damage done by
the SUVs and ATVs going off the trails and she doesn’t want to allow motorized
access.
Mr. Knight said he doesn’t like the ATVs out there either, but there is
a general consensus that the town expects to have an ATV trail through the town
forest. “If we do not keep that
(allowance of motorized public access) as a reserved right, and make it
specific that ATVs and snowmobiles are allowed, they won’t be allowed some
day.” Chris said a lot of this was
deleted from the old document and perhaps it should have been left in. Sheila noted that a lot of damage has been
done by motorized vehicles. Mr. Knight
cautioned that this document should not be used as a tactic to get a personal
viewpoint across. The document should be
left such that the town can make good decisions based on what is best at the
time.
Chris said he had no problem with having “motorized and non-motorized”
under “Purpose” and then under “Reserved Rights” having something about the
town being able to restrict this access as it sees fit. He noted that the way “Reserved Rights” is
written in this draft, it doesn’t list any vehicles specifically. Chris said we need to work on the reserved
rights, to which Mr. Knight replied that he thought that if the Commission
decides that motorized vehicles are not allowed, the Commission should write it
that way but expect a push from the town if they ever bother to find out about
it. He said the Conservation Commission
is entrusted with doing what they think is best.
Chris again asked if the board is in agreement that 1.B would say: “To
provide public access on the Property, which will allow the general public to
hike, hunt, cross-country ski, observe wildlife, and participate in other low-impact
outdoor recreational and educational activities; and….” Judy asked where in
“Reserved Rights” it would be covered that motorized access would be restricted
when necessary. Chris said that anyone
could take action to restrict it, Judy said it wouldn’t happen. Chris said even if there is no one to enforce
it, it should still be put into black and white. He explained the purpose of the easement is
to provide access. If in one sentence
you say public access allowed, then in another to say it’s restricted, that
creates a conflict.
Judy mentioned that Audubon had told the Commission that they, the
Commission, are their own “police” and have to enforce their own issues. Jason said that if we pass a policy and post
that, most people respect that. He said also, “and I think we’ll make a major
impact, the number of people we’re actually going to catch, as opposed to the
number of people who are actually going to see that and respect it, I think the
majority of people will respect [the policy].”
Chris and Mr. Knight expressed opinions in agreement with Jason.
Chris
asked again if under “Purpose” it should be written “to provide motorized and
non-motorized access.” He asked the
Commission and again Sheila, Ron, and Jason agreed to remove it. Judy wanted to understand where it would be
put instead. It was agreed that it would
be taken out, and if Legal advises to put it back in, then it will be.
Mr.
Springer asked if this was a good time to talk about the Stewardship plan. Chris explained that one project at a time
will be done. Mr. Springer pointed out
that the text of the easement says that the stewardship plan should be
completed before the easement could be done.
Mr. Knight said he interpreted the document the same way. Judy said that question had been posed to
Audubon before and the answer given was that there is some flexibility in
timing as long as boards are in agreement of the time frame for the projects. Chris said this is something to note to ask
Audubon. It was suggested by Carol that
wherever it says, “the Stewardship Plan” change it to say, “a Stewardship Plan,”
leaving a more open-ended interpretation.
Mr.
Springer pointed out that so much depends on the existence of a Stewardship
Plan. He asked what would happen in the
interim between this document being finished and the Stewardship Plan being
done. He asked if it were prudent to
sign this document without having a definite plan for finishing the Stewardship
Plan. It was reiterated that one project
at a time would be done, that there is also a Forestry Management Plan to be
done.
It
was pointed out by Mr. Knight that 2.C allows for continuation of activities as long as they are in line with
the goals stated therein until the Stewardship Plan is finalized. It was explained that there are grants and
funds available to assist anyone with the funding of a Stewardship Plan.
Mr.
DiCarlo asked if it’s possible to change the document some time from now after
it’s been signed. It was explained that
the document is always a working document and can be changed. However, it is important to get the document
right the first time.
It
was agreed that Janet will make the changes to the Easement and she will send
out the newest draft to the other boards.
Also, a meeting will be set up with Audubon, possibly four weeks from
now. The tentative date of May 3rd
was set, but it will depend on when Audubon is available.
Other
business:
Sheila
made a motion to accept the minutes of the last meeting, March 15th, after one
change is made. Jason seconded the
motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Two
positions on the Commission will be up on April 15 of this year: Ron and
Sheila. Sheila had filled out an
application to continue, and Michele Tingley had also filled out an application
to be a member of the Commission. It was
agreeable to all that these two be appointed for three year terms. Judy made a motion to accept these two
applications, Jason seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously. Janet was asked to draft a
letter to the Selectmen and forward those two applications to them for review
at their next meeting,
Ron
suggested returning next year as an alternate.
Jason wondered what was better in Ron’s life than spending his Thursday
nights with the Conservation Commission.
Ron was thanked for his service and told he’d be missed.
Chris
contacted Lucent Survey which will be getting a proposal to survey the recent
land purchase. We’ll wait to see what
the price is, and meanwhile get a couple of other quotes.
Judy
had been looking into grants. She
checked the LChip website and found seven possibilities. These will be put into a spreadsheet by Janet
to make it easier to see when applications are due, etc. Hopefully this will eliminate accidentally
missing a deadline. Chris said the one
the Commission would be most interested in right now is something that will
help with the survey. Chris said with
any project we have, we need to look at grants available. Judy said these are only the grants she found
on the LChip website and there are probably more out there.
The
wetlands inventory was discussed. With
the recent budget not passing in the town vote, Chris said there’s no money to
finish the wetlands inventory unless we took it out of the Conservation funds. Also UNH does not have any students at this
time to help with the survey. They
didn’t have students enrolled in the program and restructured the program such
that they aren’t offering the class that allows students to come out and help
with the survey, thus necessitating finding another source. Jason asked if there are others who can help. It may be possible to use Conservation funds
to pay for a survey. An outside company
will probably charge more.
Sheila
brought up a concern she has that came up when the Selectmen were talking about
raising
Sheila
said his expertise is in the beaver dams.
Jason explained that Beaver Solutions needs to understand that there are
consequences to a particular action—the water will have to go somewhere, and we
need to ensure people aren’t being flooded down below.
Judy
mentioned the beaver activity is on the east side of Hwy 111A now. Jason described if you head north by the
campground along Long Pond Rd. just on the right, you’ll see trees that have
been recently taken down by beavers.
Chris mentioned that there are probably more areas that Beaver Solutions
needs to look at. Chris asked what the
water level was before the leveler was put in.
It depends on what time of year and exactly where you are measuring,
however, the water level had dropped on average. The issue is, they want no water at all on
Chris
asked if the water is too high or if the road is too low. The answer is yes to both. Mr. Knight pointed out that there are other
issues here. First of all, we need to be
careful how much effort we put into improving the road. One solution is to not improve the road, just
draw the water down. If the beaver dam,
which is 14 feet higher than 111A, ever breaks, that’s a lot of water that will
have to go somewhere.
Beaver
Solutions has cautioned the town before about fooling around with the beaver
dam because it does hold back a lot of water.
Jason’s
opinion is that Beaver Solutions should start at 111A and work its way back,
because the other dams can hold up the water if the one lets go.
Chris
clarified that if the beaver dams weren’t there in the first place, the water
level would be back to where it was to begin with. There wouldn’t be any flooding between the
campground and 111A. Chris supposed that
there may be need to put in more water levelers, not just fiddling with the one
that’s there. He asked if Beaver
Solutions could come in and talk to the board.
He said strategic spots could be identified in which to put levelers,
which may be a better solution.
Jason
pointed out that an issue is the beavers are destroying a certain amount of
forest, and it could become a safety issue for people downstream.
Mr.
Knight pointed out that there is a series of old beaver dams that successively
take the water level up the further up stream you go. Once you get to the largest dam, there is a
tremendous amount of water being held back.
With 111A being a state road, this also becomes a state issue. Judy pointed out the old mill site, and this
area is also the beginning of the
Chris
asked if perhaps Emily Brunkhurst could come and speak to the Commission about
possible solutions. Judy asked if anyone
had asked the Commission to look into this.
She seemed to the think the Selectmen thought they were taking care of
this issue. Judy thought that the
Commission should go to the Selectmen and have everyone talk about this and
explain that this won’t be a one time solution, in that the water could simply
be let to run off down
Putting
a gate at the back entrance to the town forest was brought up. There is a gate at the front entrance and
there is a gate already built for the back entrance by the power lines but it
hasn’t been installed yet. Mr. Knight
mentioned that a gate had been put up another time, but it was gone within a
week. Sheila mentioned the amount of trash
being left and that she had written a letter to the Selectmen about this. ATV’s using the trails and going off the
trails was discussed.
Mr.
Knight asked if there is a list of conservation land. Judy read a list of land parcels that are
considered conservation land, by easement, wetland designation, and
otherwise. Mr. Knight also asked if the
Commission tries to purchase land that connects to other pieces of conservation
land, or has a grand plan in mind of how purchases affect the future of
Correspondence:
- From Betsy: an email
sent
- Notice that we’re on
the default budget
- Letter from Betsy: she
asked Bill Doucet to list survey acreage on parcels; forwarded to Chris
- Notice from Selectmen,
that recommendations for appointment to the Conservation Commission are
due by the 15th
- NHDES—Mark Stephens
responded to a question regarding an issue discussed at the last meeting, about Diamond Pond: it’s an artificial
water body and the letter was just informational
- Copy of dredge and fill-extension
of existing
- Letter to DES about the
aforementioned dredge and fill
- Letter to Selectmen
from
- Planning board minutes
- Doucet Survey, Inc. regarding
the White Rock Realty trust fee for survey of land estimate: $11,000
- Given to us from Donna
Sullivan, an invitation from Linda Wilson; a meeting April 2
- From Peter
Laughlin—original title an policy of land purchased
- NHDES-notice of
administrative completeness, dated
- Copies of
- Letter from NHDES dated
March 19 acknowledge that they received our letter
- From Donna Sullivan, a May
23 meeting: DES Annual Drinking Water Protection Workshop
Since
the discussion would involve consideration of an item or items which, if
discussed in public, might benefit a party whose interests are adverse to those
of the general community, RSA 91-A: 3.II.d should warrant a nonpublic session, Ron
made a motion to go into nonpublic session per RSA 91-A: 3.II.d and Sheila
seconded. The motion was made and
seconded. A roll call was completed and
the motion passed. Jason made a motion
to adjourn the public meeting and Ron seconded the motion. The motion carried.
The
public meeting adjourned at
Judy
made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Sheila seconded. The motion passed and the meeting adjourned
at
*****Next
Meeting:
THESE MINUTES ARE
NOT PERMANENT RECORD AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE NEXT REGULARLY
SCHEDULED CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING, AT WHICH TIME, THE ABOVE MINUTES, AS
CORRECTED BECOME PERMANENT.
Minutes
prepared by: Janet S. Denison, Conservation Commission Clerk