The public meeting of the Milford Conservation Commission was called to order by the Chair, Diane Fitzpatrick at 7:00 PM.
MINUTES: Upon a motion made by Chris Costantino and seconded by Sharon Hannan, the minutes of the December 12, 2002 meeting were accepted as presented. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. APPOINTMENTS:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW:
There being no further business to come before this meeting, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM. The next regular meeting of the Conservation Commission is scheduled for Thursday, February 13, 2003 at 7 PM, in the Board of Selectmen's Meeting Room in the Town Hall. Minutes prepared by Rita Carroll. |
The public meeting of the Milford Conservation Commission was called to order by the Vice-Chair, Hub Seward at 7:05 PM.
MINUTES: Upon a motion made by Chris Costantino and seconded by Rod DellaFelice, the minutes of the January 9, 2003 meeting were accepted as presented. APPOINTMENTS:
Pierce asked about the method of calculation of pre and post development run-off. Are lots that are cleared taken into consideration? Mr. Sandford answered that 1/4 acre imperviousness is credited for each site. He also explained that the largest variable in calculating run-off is the surface, namely how much water goes in to the ground and how much travels along the surface. This number is subject to interpretation, but if kept consistent pre and post development, the calculation of change in run-off will be accurate. When asked what would be done if the post-development run-off were too great, Mr. Sandford answered that a detention pond would be constructed to solve problems on a macro scale. On a micro scale the locations of ditches and driveways are set to cause water to run past houses, as opposed to towards them. Pierce expressed another concern, that the wetlands are included in some lots. Members would like to see wetlands be outside of the lots in hopes of minimizing impacts made by homeowners in their back yards. Abutters expressed concerns over wildlife in the area, including evidence of deer and red tail hawk. Mr. Frye, an abutter, asked about the amount of fill that will be used in the first 6 or 7 houses coming in off of Rt. 13 specifically in the swamp in the area, in that he has flooding concerns. Mr. Sandford answered that no fill would be used in that area. Pierce pointed out that the Commission takes the word of the engineers presenting their calculations of pre and post run-off, and in this case the fact that the 0.1-0.2 CFS increase is not enough to warrant a detention pond. The Commission does not do a technical review. The proper handling of the run-off must be proven in a site-specific plan review done by the state. Pierce asked Mr. Sandford how the density was calculated and was told that a conventional plan was done for that determination. Chris Guida pointed out that for crossing A, at Rt. 13, approval will be needed from abutters in that the crossing is within 20 ft. of the property line. The western portion of this development lies over the aquifer. A motion was made by Pierce and seconded by Audrey that the Commission recommend to the state approval of this application with three conditions: The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. In the recommendation letter to the state, Rita will also mention the need for abutter approval for impact A. She will make note that the wildlife corridor will be impacted by impact D, although improved upon from the original design. The current application proposes to slope the existing bank 3 to 1 and to use tree stumps, stone, loam and sod to stabilize the bank. They plan to place stone at the bottom and to 1 ft. above normal water flow. Stumps would be driven into the bank above that and the remainder would be vegetated with grass. The engineers on the project, Brickstone Masons, Inc. of Keene, feel that due to the strong current of the river, vegetating the bank (natural stabilization) would not provide sufficient stabilization and the erosion would continue. This river is a designated river in the state's River's Management & Protection Program. Chris Costantino stated that there is an RSA that must be followed, referring to RSA 483 New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Program. She read from the RSA that we are "to conserve and protect outstanding characteristics including recreational, fisheries, wildlife, environmental, cultural, historical, archaeological, scientific, ecological, aesthetic, community significance, agricultural, and public water supply so that these valued characteristics shall endure as part of the river uses to be enjoyed by New Hampshire people." She mentioned that none of it included golf courses and that the previous owners, who used it for agriculture, did not come to the Commission for help with stabilizing the bank. Mr. Barrett felt that stabilization would be permitted in that other owners along the river have been allowed to stabilize. Under this law it simply needs to be applied for. Diane had e-mailed members that she has been in touch with Steve Couture, Rivers coordinator for DES and with the Local Advisory Committee. The possibility of requesting a presentation to the LAC along with a public hearing was raised. George May of the Souhegan Watershed Association was present to discuss the issue. He stated that the SWA speaks for the river and addresses the multiple uses, preservation, restoration and erosion of the river. He claims that bank stabilization is trying to stop nature from taking its course. The energy of the flow must transfer somewhere and will move farther downstream, perhaps to the areas along Rt. 101A behind KFC and other businesses, possibly causing those areas to need riprap. Mr. May's suggestion is to either leave the area alone or to create a setback area that would allow trees and shrubs to grow. The erosion problem had been made worse by farming the land right up to the river. Creation of a buffer area would slow down, although not stop the erosion. He also suggested that a study be done of the history of the river to be better able to predict what will happen to it in the future. Chris Guida pointed out that this problem is a snapshot in time and that without some understanding of the history of this section of the river it would be impossible to predict how much land would be lost due to the erosion. In addition to the need for more information regarding the history of the river, members felt that a couple of the criteria for approval by the wetlands bureau were not addressed. Wt 302.04, Requirements for Application Evaluation, includes the cumulative impact that would result if all abutters were permitted these impacts. Several members expressed concern at various times during the meeting that the plan did not seem complete in that it addressed only a small portion of the river bank and did not consider what effects the proposed work would have on the downstream sections of the river including much which borders the applicants property. The feeling was that we might see more applications in the following years to correct the effects of this project. Rod pointed out an area shortly downstream on Mr. Barrett's property that looks like it could be eroded as a result of this project. Mr. Barrett said that it is more of a sandbar than a bank and that it probably would not erode. Members fear that if this project is not done correctly the first time Mr. Barrett would need to return to stabilize more area downstream. Question 6 on the application itself asks for explanation of the need and why the approach has less environmental impact than other alternatives. Audrey mentioned that in time the stumps would rot and that native vegetation is not talked about in the plan. The loam and sod that is proposed would not hold the bank as well as would natural vegetation. Long-term erosion would probably occur again if native vegetation was not used. Members would like to have an engineer explain to them why this process is the best way to do the stabilization. Could something be used to hold things in place temporarily until the natural vegetation was established? Does this proposed plan only solve the immediate problem while creating another? Without more information members felt that they could not make a decision as to whether or not to recommend approval of this application. Pierce made a motion that the Commission not recommend approval of this project for the following reasons. There needs to be more information obtained regarding the history of the river in order to project what would happen with or without the stabilization regarding future impacts upstream and downstream. An explanation of why this approach is better than all reasonable alternatives is needed. The original recommendation made for use of natural stabilization was not used. The potential cumulative impact from abutters is not adequately addressed. This project may only address an immediate problem and can possibly create another. Jenn seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. The Commission would like to see the Local Advisory Committee review the application and would like to be included on any site walks that the LAC or the state take of the area. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
INFORMATION ITEM:
INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW:
There being no further business to come before this meeting, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. The next regular meeting of the Conservation Commission is scheduled for Thursday, March 13, 2003 at 7 PM, in the Board of Selectmen's Meeting Room in the Town Hall. |