Town of Auburn

Conservation Commission

February 11, 2009

Present: Duffy Smiley, Chairman, Anne Gagnon, Chuck Joy, Alan Villeneuve, Paul Raiche, Jeff Porter and Jill Morrison

Absent:  Stephanie Hanson

Guests:  David Sacks and David Reese, Audubon Society

Duffy Smiley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.    

Audubon Society (all introduced themselves)

 
David stated we spoke to the National Resource Conservation and they came in with an appraisal - we are not going to do this.  We are back now to the Town to discuss the appraisal - both of the appraisals were half of what we were expecting them to be.  We had an appraisal at twice that.   We are putting the McLane Center - we are very much involved in debt service reduction - to do that we have hired a company in Concord to work with us - to use it - to buy it and lease back a portion of it.   It is a tough market for that also.  If this would work it would reduce our debt service in half.   If we can’t do that, the next thing we look at is the Massabesic Center and see what we can do there.  If we could sell a conservation easement on it - fabulous - $156,000 but we would both have to rely on the appraisal. 

One of the things that happened last year was the Board of Trustees approached the Center last year with a statement about difficult times ahead and formed a Council called Massabesic Audubon Center and Advisors Council.  This Council has put together a development, a program, membership, volunteer, technology, maintenance committee.  These committees have been extremely active since then.  The Program Committee has started planning out all of the programs in advance and emails go out monthly thru the Parks and Rec Dept also to help market this.    We are also doing Lewis and Clark survey techniques, topography, photography, bird watches, film making.  Deferred maintenance on the property has been let go and we are working at improving that also.  We have volunteers coming in to help out.  In the last year, we have turned things around. 

Since August, we have moved the store out of its original location because it wasn’t making any money.   I have walked the trails and seen the parking lots full - we see the volunteers go and open the center.  It is amazing how many people who have never been inside and we ask them to come in and sign the register.  We tell them we have live animals, we feed the raven at 12:30 on Sunday’s, it has turned into a happening place.  We also rent snowshoes on Sunday’s.

Alan stated that we have a parcel larger than 110 acres around the $250,000 range.  We want to make sure that is the range you would be in.    I assume with the conservation easement you would state what type of activity is allowed.  Duffy stated we have the Rockingham County Conservation District, Mary Currier and they advise us and help us in the writing of the easements.  We buy the development rights and they hold the easement for us.    (show a copy of the proposed easement by someone else)    Duffy explained that the Town does not want to hold the easement.  (refer to map and layout of the property)

Duffy Smiley asked if they had contacted Water Works at all?  No - was the response.  Manchester Waterworks does have temporary easements around here (looking at map).  (Jeff Porter arrived)

Duffy explained that the next step would be the members of the Conservation Commission thru Open Space would go out and view the property and complete an evaluation form. 

Alan Villeneuve motion that the Conservation Commission move forward in looking at this property as soon as possible
Second by Jeff Porter

All in favor - motion carries.

Duffy Smiley we will schedule a date and go out and do the evaluation.  David Sacks will be the prime contact. 

(Audubon Center leaves)

CTAP Enters (Mary Brundage and Joy)

Mary Brundage stated we would like to cover a few things tonight basically what we are doing with the Open Space Land  Project.  This program started two years ago to help the communities on the I93 corridor.  One of the things that came out of it is the Open Space Plan and now we are taking four communities for the first year to do an Open Space Plan that would fit into your Master Plan or update your current Master Plan.  What we are doing tonight is to find out what your basic mission would be?  We are also looking to have two other representatives from other Boards participate.  Duffy stated we also have Parks and Recreation and Budget Committee.  Also someone involved with the Open Space.  Paul Raiche is also our Selectmen’s Representative.

CTAP Program gives you $10,000 to do this - if the Town would also like to contribute to that to work outside the protocol that is accepted also.  (Handout to all)

Duffy stated she did speak with the Selectmen and told them who would be on the Task Board and they stated that was fine and received their approval. 

Alan stated I am not sure I understand these agricultural characters of Auburn.  I don’t know if I see agricultural character of Auburn - I don’t feel there is an agricultural character of Auburn left stated Villeneuve.  Chuck stated if there are any farms we will certainly want to preserve it.  Alan stated there is nice farm land - but there aren’t any farms. 

Review Open Space Protocol so you understand what the next steps are.  Then Amy will state in Auburn why we felt this would be beneficial.  This does not get involved with the tax assessments.   We are under a little bit of a crunch because we have until April to put this all together.  Maps have to be created and a lot of work completed before then. 

This is the preliminary meeting.   The next meeting we schedule will be called Why?  That will be identification of high value natural resources in the Town.  We will have the maps here, review the Open Space plan - we go thru a point system of 100 points and you give a number to what is the most valuable for you to have.  (shows a sample of Londonderry plan) Soils, open space areas, unregimented areas, water qualities, and other quality of life indicators - will all be looked at.  In Londonderry they have an apple way that they wanted to mark so that is one of the things they wanted to protect and that is what we are going to try to do tonight - so if you have areas that affect the quality of life things that you would want in the open space plan. 

Take the 100 points spread them out, we enter these on a computer and see where people are outside of the average.  Then we go to a second round until we get a consensus of where the weighing of these natural resources are for Auburn.  After that happens we take the information back put it into a computer and start weighing all of these data factors till a current model is designed to identify areas that are of higher importance. 

The drawings will come on film in the second meeting and a lot more maps.  Paul  asked if it would be helpful for them to have the maps we have at our disposal to use and get information from such as Open Space map.  We probably have most of those maps - but if you have some of those we would gladly take them.  Will probably work off the National Wetlands Inventory.  Duffy  stated we just had it completed but we have not voted on it yet.  Also using NH Federal Logic Data Test of Main Streams and Lakes - we have aquifer - all pretty standard data tests from around the state.  Any conservation land easements would also be helpful or easements that you are interested in. 

The parcels that have a high natural resource score and then come up with strategies as to how to protect them.  What they did with the dole out was to use it to try to figure out what kind of value that property was based on how many houses they could build on it and things like that - we can’t do that unless we have it spelled out in current and would be part of the master plan.  If we identify the parcels for you guys - the highest natural resource score - then we can still give you a quality list and come up with ways, a strategy to protect them. 

Alan asked if $10,000 was enough to do this and how is it determined is it a lump sum?  Yes - $10,000 is enough.   Alan asked we are not going to be ¾ of the way done and we are out of money and looking for funds another way.  I don’t think so stated Mary.  We have done a number of these and have not run out of money to do the project. 

Duffy stated to then this would get incorporated into the master plan.  Would we be asking the Planning Board to accept this asked Smiley also adding that the Planning Board did not respond and they did not recommend the Prime Wetlands for a town vote.  Are we going to have to get them to accept this or is this just something to be utilized by the Town.  My understanding is it is something to be utilized by the Town.  Chuck stated this is everything we wanted Open Space to be doing.  What is Londonderry doing with these asked Smiley?  Londonderry is trying to protect in other ways, not sure if they are incorporating it into their master plan but they had gone into parts of the town and are working with the Building Department. 

(looking at map)

We have done linear build outs and expediential build out - and we look at these building permits issued from 1990 up thru 2006.  It does cover some roads.  The build outs are a very high level exercise - you have to look at the greater picture not just the little details so it doesn’t necessarily matter whether you hit a high or low phase.  I can run an analysis that lets you create a view analysis for the area.  Also any unique characters to the town that you want to make sure that you preserve - like Londonderry has their Apple Way - they want to protect the apple orchards - so if there is some natural resource like that in Auburn we can.  Prime wetlands have there own spot. 

Unique areas:

Mr. Griffin area (near his home)

Top of Bunker Hill

Top of Dearborn

The idea is to protect these areas because if it is developed it will ruin the view. 

Spruce Lane area - bog up there very unusual spot

Kettle Pond

Little Massabesic

Mt. Miner

Next scheduled meeting dates are: 

March 5 and March 25

April 8 and April 27

(CTAP exits)

Therrien Property (Keith Martel, Todd Connors and Jim Schauer)

Keith stated we are here this evening to review the functional analysis.  (exhibits to show)  A breakdown of the development area - one of the wetlands here is what has been identified as one of the prime wetlands - Cohas - the roadway is essentially right where it was a couple of months ago when you saw it.  We have straightened out two of the lots basically trying to reduce some of the deduction requests that we would have.  (refer to map)  Still trying to get houses and septic on both of those lots in the 125 ft. envelope, however, we now dragged the house into the buffer in the front.   We do have 125 ft. setback from the main prime wetlands - we don’t want to cross that line in the sand.  We also have lot development plans that we prepared as part of our site plan application.  On the second sheet I can show you in a little bit better detail where the reductions would occur. 

Jim stated since that time we have developed this plan  using the highway methodology.  We have two existing culverts already - one for the existing driveway and one for the woods road out in back and that will come up later in the road requirements.  There is another wetland around the garage but it is not a prime.  (can not understand this)  Not a lot of hydric soils.   Most of the crossings as I mentioned occurred in flat areas and don’t have a lot of hydrology and not a lot of opportunity for improvement.  Not a lot of use for recreation.  Will not have a lot of impact to whatever value that is clearly there now.  The road will be in between the houses and the pond over here and the existing (refer to map) grass and the disturbance is pretty minimal.  Alan stated when I was there it seemed like the elevation of the current driveway and the elevation of the road - I believe the road is coming up a little bit where the driveway is.  Jim stated the road will actually be a little bit lower than the driveway is.  Alan stated it is also right on the edge of open water - how many feet of impact do you have on the front lot?  Keith stated we are going to replace the culvert entirely.  Jim stated what we decided to do in both cases is put an outlet to our two new culverts right where the outlet to the current culverts are - so that we wouldn’t have as much of an impact back here (refer to map).  The only impact we will have on that side there is some erosion stone and outlet apron.  On the west side the current culvert is approximately 20 feet wide and the other side is approximately 15 feet long - and the total length of the culvert is 55 feet and what we are doing today is an extension of the roadway and embankment to the roadway back to the point where the slope of the road touches back down.  To help you understand the roadway - (refer to map) - is about a foot below the existing grade out there and the reason we are cutting in the road is because we want to cut our embankments down to the pavement - we don’t want to cut right here because we don’t want to put in ditches on the side of the road.  We simply want to come off the shoulder and come down about a foot and come to original grade.  The start of the road would be away from the open water which would minimize it and we don’t want to have deep slopes for erosion issues near the open water area.    (refer now to different sites on the map) Grading is approximately 75 feet from the pond.    Paul stated the pond has a higher value ……….   If a road area has been heavily salted you could expect to see a burn area on the side of the road - it could be posted as a no salt area - if the town was to do things like that.  It is a public road so this is something we could address.  Jeff added added I am looking at this from a prime wetlands consideration and habitat species as well.  Todd stated there is an awful lot of water out there and the amount of sulpher usage would go down - there is a fair amount that would get absorbed into the water bed  - it may very slightly change the quality of the water but it would be such an insignificant amount I wouldn’t expect that it would affect the habitat from my own personal experience.  Paul stated but things can occur also with the homeowners.  The majority of the driveways are very short - 50 ft.  There will be a lot of lawn - we are not looking to clear cut the development area. 

Buffer reductions you would be concerned with the areas where we would be asking for the reductions that would be opening up deep slopes and could allow erosion to occur into the wetlands.  This area half way down the road on the right hand side - we have this group of lots - with two long driveways and put the homes essentially on the ridge line - there is a pretty good embankment down to this wetland - you can see the way it is laid out the driveways and the houses and the grading on the top of the hill to avoid this steep section here.  The way we are grading on the top we are trying to avoid this steep section thru here.  We have 125 ft. setbacks here - but there is some grading in the buffer right here (refer to map) - the corner of the driveway is the 125 ft mark.   This one we have the steep slope and also a buffer reduction.  Paul Raiche stated you said you have 4-5 ft. till ledge - how much do you need?  A minimum of 2 ½ feet depending on the pipe - we are using an enviro type septic system.  Other systems require 4 ft from ledge and water.  You are required to prove that your lot has a 20,000 sq. ft. area with at least 3 ft of natural soil.  When we started our original concept we picked the house locations the best we could and then started to move our wells as far away as we could - so we have plenty of room to put the septic system - once Jeff went out to the field and actually developed our septic we started to bring everything closer.  In a cluster subdivision generally there is not a real need to put that well out of the way - in a traditional subdivision you actually have to take the area under the well radius out of your lot sizes.  You do also in a cluster subdivision but I have 200 acres here - I don’t have to look at any one particular lot and say this is the minimum lot size for the State - I have to say this entire parcel has a density of so many lots.  

I did mention that there were a couple of wells on these two lots that we placed near the trail.  We felt this would give easy access to the wells but it does happen to be in the buffer.  The reason those are there is because the septic is on the back of the house.  We were looking for room - we are very pinched here.  (see map)  Alan Villeneuve stated the further away you are the more disturbance you will create.  There is no land. 

Right of way that we discussed we feel confident that we will get it - connection to the Gagnon property.  This roadway (refer to map) here we have no designs on - the land here is landlocked and so we took the opportunity to put this on the plan so someone would have access in the future.  We have a very significant crossing and there is no way to put a culvert in there - unless we built a nice big bridge - so at the end of the day, there is a long road but with no houses on it.  For someone to actually make use of this it becomes a very expensive proposition, however, I don’t want to say it won’t happen but we have no plans for it.   This area here is a less desirable location and difficult to build and there is no purpose other than to provide access to the properties in the back because we have the opportunity to do so.  If the Planning Board or Conservation Commission were to suggest something as an alternative we would certainly look into doing that.  Duffy noted about not having a right of way into an easement.

Paul stated the wetland area on the west side we would be most concerned about.  That is where most of - the steep is down but I am not sure you have what the effectiveness is going to be on that?  In most cases we are trying to make sure the buildings do not encroach on the setback areas and on our first visit thru (refer to map) table 1 - encroachments - a number of the lots have grading - and when we say grading it is to construct the homes and septic but not the driveway.  That is also an area where we would put lawn back.  I realize driveways are not necessarily - or do not necessarily require the waiver but I want to show you the lots where we have encroachments to the septic and homes.  I think those are the ones that are a little bit more than just driveways and grading - lot #3 - in the front where we are replacing the existing home - in this particular case - the build able area is relatively small.  Existing house is rather large the proposed house would be more regular shaped - colonial w/attached garage.  The house itself is just outside the 125 ft. setback - there is a small corner of the house that is outside of the envelope - the septic here is outside the 125 ft setback.  This particular location the septic is 100 ft from the wetland.  The house from one of the corners is a foot or so over the line.  Alan asked where is the addition going on this house?  The existing house is being removed.  Alan stated where is the addition on the new house going.  We are not proposing an addition.  We have approached this from the standpoint once ourselves and a few years down the road the homeowner goes thru this process also, the builders addition putting in this pool and cutting down the space.  So what we intend to do is to ask the Planning Board to reduce the 125 ft. buffer to a certain point - obviously 75 would be the most but in some locations we are asking for it to be reduced to 100 ft.   We are looking to create an envelope around each unit so there is adequate area for lawn - if they want to put an addition or deck.  There will be room for that.  When you look at this lot right here (refer to map) I have drawn this back line as my envelope and it is 90 ft. all the way around - so on this particular lot - the 125 be reduced to 90 ft. and that would give this envelope which would include the house, septic.  And room on this side for anything else they want to do.  There would be room to accomplish that without them having to come back in here.  We are not looking to reduce these setbacks to the corners of the house, septic or what not.  We want to make sure there is actual yard space - so that we have room for these types of things. 

There are three lots that have septic systems within the 125 setback and four lots that have homes.  Lots 4 and 5 - we fit the home and the septic in the 125 ft. setback however we were so very close with this back line of the setback to the buffer that we new there would be grading impacts - pressure to cut trees and clear yard space so what we opted to do is slide these two homes forward to the front location (see plan) which puts them closer to this wetland and this other clump of wetlands here.  By doing that we can make decisions that this back line goes all the way across that is the 125 - we are suggesting that we go thru this process once  - we ask for a buffer reduction and we build the house in a more appropriate location then rather to shoot one into the 125 so that if they want to put a small addition on the house there is room to do it.  There is certainly enough yard space around the house.  What I am looking for reductions here is down to 75 ft.  This is the small finger of wetlands that runs alongside the trail that we walked, foundation I believe is right here (refer to map) - this is the open swampy area with the culvert out there that goes back towards the swamp.  Alan  stated near the shooting range.   At the end of the day asking for a break on the front setback and maintaining the 125 in the back is the approach we took here.  These two lots are where the skeptics are in the correct setbacks but the two homes have now been pushed forward and encroached. 

Alan asked are you looking for our approval on any of these things tonight and suggested we review lot by lot.  We are planning to present this to Planning Board the final plans are not done just yet, we would like to get your blessing or to give us direction we would take it - we are hoping at the Planning Board meeting next Wednesday we can have a similar discussion with them - and we would really like to get to the point where these issues are settling down for us and know if we are on the right track or not.   If we are not on the right track, we will need to go back to the drawing board, we don’t want to keep plugging along - so the quicker you tell us we are on the right track - but if there are things that are still of concern to you please tell us that. 

Lot 19 on the right hand side of the cull du sac this is one where the house is within the 125 ft setback.  It is approximately 97 feet from the edge of the wetland.  107 ft. off the edge of the wetland off the back corner.  (see map)  This part of the home encroaches and also some encroachment here for grading.   Where the circle is actually going - it is very flat in this area, extremely flat right here.  Paul Raiche stated when you get to the back towards the wetland. 

Lot 29 right here is one of the lots we are trading back with the Town of Auburn for that piece that is not on the tax records.  We have this very large flat horseshoe wetland and on the northerly side we have the small pocket.  We were able to get the home to fit within the 125 ft setback - but the setback itself is not much bigger than the home.  (refer to map)  The septic system and area around the house are all within the 125 ft.  The second location of the septic is in the setback.   We did ask for a revised design here for the home. 

Lot 24 is adjacent to the small right of way going to the end.  In this particular location the house and grading is outside the 125 ft.  The septic does not fit well on the lot - it does encroach on the 125 ft.  The corner of the septic is 100 ft away from the wetlands.  We are asking for a reduction on the buffer to 75 feet.  We did look at moving the septic in this location - it wasn’t that we just put it on paper and didn’t look at other options.  Once this is constructed as a road we will have roadside drainage and setbacks.   Those are the lots that have septic and house encroachments. 

I also want to point out to everybody that table 2 at the very end is the summary of functions and values by the lot.  Giving consideration to a particular lot where there is a buffer reduction - you can see very quickly the functions and values that Jim has assigned to the wetlands are on this paper. 

In regards to the other easement that we are working on the ball is in the landowner’s court stated Duffy.  Once all has been agreed upon it will go to the town lawyer for review.

Motion to adjourn meeting made by Alan Villeneuve

Second by Jeff Porter

All in favor.