February_6__2007doc - City of Nashua

Document Sample
February_6__2007doc - City of Nashua Powered By Docstoc
					                                NASHUA CONSERVATION COMMISSION

                                                    FEBRUARY 6, 2007

                                                    MEETING MINUTES

A regular meeting of the Nashua Conservation Commission was held on Tuesday, February 6,
2007 at 7:02 p.m. in Room 208 of City Hall. Chairman Bretz presided:

Members of the Commission Present:                 Melvin Meyer, Vice Chairman
                                                   Mark Newhall, Clerk
                                                   Nicholas Frasca
                                                   Peter Temperino
                                                   Richard Gillespie
                                                   Richard Sawyer, Deputy Planning Manager
                                                   Chris Sullivan, Planner

Members of the Commission Absent:

Also in Attendance:                                Catherine Fisher
                                                   James N. Petropulos, PE, Hayner/Swanson, Inc.
                                                   John R. Lavigne, Jr., P.E., H.L. Turner Group
                                                   William Bruce, Drakes Appleton Corp., Hampton, NH


Conservation Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 2, 2007



Buffer Outreach DES Project information packet previously in the possession of Ms. Bretz was
returned to the Commission.

A binder containing information pertaining to land that could have been purchased was returned
to the Commission by Ms. Bretz.

A brief discussion ensued regarding the possibility of hiring a part-time individual for the purpose
of following up on stipulations imposed by the Conservation Commission as well as by the
Department of Environmental Services.

From:      Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Re:        Wetlands Permit #2005-00155, Cotton Transfer Pedestrian Bridge Project

           Copy of kickoff meeting minutes of 1-25-07 provided per condition #7 of permit.
           Requesting relief of Condition #5 of permit.
From:      New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Re:        Wetlands Bureau Complaint File #2007-00023, 5 Pine Street Ext. North
Nashua Conservation Commission

        Tax Map 77/Lot #10

        Notification of complaint received.

From:   New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Re:     Wetlands File #2007-00096, Grace Fellowship of Nashua, Simon Street, Nashua
        Tax Map/Lot #E/1424

        Acknowledge Receipt of Dredge & Fill Application. Accepted as administratively

From:   New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Re:     Wetlands and Non-Site Specific Permit 2005-00155, Nashua River
        Tax Map/Lot No.: 77/77-20

        Approval date 8-4-06/Expiration date 8-4-11

From:   Jane A. Difley, President/Forester, Society for the Protection of NH Forests
Re:     Membership Renewal

From:   Laura V. Games, Esq., Manager, Code Enforcement Department
To:     Scott & Patricia Rogers
Re:     Notice of Violation – Properties at 183 & L Chestnut Street

        Regarding complaint from Conservation Commission related to Christmas trees and
        yard debris being dumped within prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook, and
        verification by drive-by inspection. Abatement must occur by 1-17-07.

From:   Jeanne T. Walker, P.E., Project Manager
Re:     Proposed Wet Weather Flow Treatment Facility at the Nashua Wastewater Treatment
        Facility, 2 Sawmill Road

        Annual Photographic Documentation.

From:   City of Nashua Code Enforcement
To:     Steven Rega, Registered Agent, Riverside Properties of Nashua, Inc.
Re:     Notice of Violations, Property at 5 Pine Street Ext., North, Nashua, NH

        Notification of receipt of typewritten, unsigned complaint regarding work being
        conducted in an adjacent wetland. Site visit revealed no work being conducted in
        wetland; however, landscaping company had pulled up a substantial portion of the
        vegetation within the prime wetland buffer. No record of permits or approvals for
        decks constructed within buffer. Abatement measures are required to begin within 30
        days of receipt of letter.

Nashua Conservation Commission

From:    New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Re:      Prescott Square, Nashua, NH
         Tax Map/Lot #62/61, 170 & 232

         Issuance of Alteration of Terrain Permit (WPS-7686) with conditions as listed.

From:    Southern NH Resource Conservation and Development area Council
Re:      2006 Annual Report

From:    New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Re:      DES File No. 070130-05
         Map/Lot NO. E/1424

         Application received from Kevin Slattery, Bernie Plante, et. al, Nashua
         Alteration of Terrain Permit to disturb 575,000 sq. ft. to construct campus ministry
         project with associated site improvements in Nashua. Comments on technical aspects
         of application accepted until 3-5-07.



101 Shore Drive (Sheet E Lot 530) – John and Catherine Fisher (owners). A dock is proposed
within the Nashua River. Permanent buffer Impact is 540 Sq ft. and the Permanent Wetland
Impact is 120 Sq Ft. Proposed a 4’X30’ “L” shaped seasonal floating dock, connected to the
shore by a gangway.

Mrs. Fisher provided the commission with drawings of the proposed deck and dock. She is
requesting a permit to build a deck and dock. Her residence is currently the only home on the
river side of Shore Drive without a deck. The proposed plan for the deck is in accordance with
Building Department guidelines. The deck is proposed to extend 10 feet, and have no impact
on the wetlands. A conservation easement exists on the property. She has been notified by the
State of the requirement for a Standard Dredge & Fill.

Ms. Bretz stated a certified wetland scientist would need to be hired to oversee the work. The
dock would be seasonal, and would eliminate the need for carrying their scull (27’) into the
shoreline thereby disturbing the vegetation on a daily basis. The dock would be constructed of
polypropylene, and would only impact the plants located underneath it. When asked how the
dock would be accessed, Mrs. Fisher stated a set of stairs would have to be placed down into
the bank. It would also be necessary for permanent pylons to be placed in the river.

Dr. Meyer questioned whether the dock could be placed parallel to the shore. Mrs. Fisher
remarked that she didn’t see any reason why he (her husband) couldn’t approach that.

Ms. Bretz stated the amount of impact the dock would have (area out into the water) could be
precedent setting. She requested BMPs be provided for such a project.

Site Walk Scheduled: Saturday, February 17, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Commissioner Assigned: Peter Temperino

Nashua Conservation Commission

Grace Fellowship Church (Applicant) Simon Street (Sheet E, Lot 1424) – James N. Petropulos
HSI, (project engineer). No wetland or buffer impacts are proposed. The proposed project is a
two story building and parking and landscape improvements. A NHDES Dredge and Fill Permit
is required as project is adjacent to the Nashua River Canal.

Before the Commission as a result of filing for a NHDES Wetlands Permit. Although the project
will not impact wetlands, the DES states any time you are adjacent to a prime wetland as
designated by the municipality, a permit is required.

Mr. Petropulos informed the Commission the property in question is at the end of Simon Street.
It is a 14-acre tract of land at the end of a cul-de-sac. The area is currently wooded with sandy
soil. There is a PSNH power line located along the southerly property line. Abutting the
northerly property line are the Nashua Canal and Mine Falls Park.

The Christian Academy is looking for a new home on this site. There are three pieces to the
project; a lobby area, a gym supported by a 1,600-seat auditorium, and classroom space, which
is expected to take 3-7 years to build. There are no jurisdictional wetlands on site. The project
does not impact the 75-foot buffer to the canal.

With regard to storm water, borings showed 20 feet of sand before reaching groundwater. The
Canal is a manmade, lined watercourse, which is 30 feet up from the river. The low area in the
center of the property serves as a good recharge area. There is an approximate 500-600 foot
by 80-foot wide swale area that will accept flow from the main parking areas, and will serve as
the recharge area. The front parking lot is handled as a conventional storm water management
area. There is a 24” pipe on the adjacent Teradyne property that outlets to the canal. Any peak
flows that don’t recharge will end up in the pipe and into the canal, which has been shown to
handle a 50-year storm event. Closest area to canal is 125 feet near tree clearing. The
building is about 200-250 back from canal.

Mr. Sawyer stated the Planning Department is happy with the plan, and non-binding
recommendations could be sent to the State. The applicant desires a recommendation due to
the time restrictions imposed by the State (45 days to receive response from Conservation
Commission). It is believed a recommendation could speed up the process for the applicant.

Mr. Gillespie mentioned, according to the NRI, the area is a critical wildlife habitat. Ms. Bretz
asked if Mr. Prokop has visited the site. Mr. Petropulos stated that he has, and in fact he
participated in the application to the State. NHI did not find any rare or endangered species on
the site.

Site Walk Scheduled for Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for the purpose of
viewing the property prior to providing a recommendation to the State.

The Commission agreed that Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Meyer would prepare a letter to the State
indicating approval of the project.

Nashua Conservation Commission


Jackson Falls Condominium, 52 Main Street (Sheet 43 - Lot 103) Nashua Riverwalk, LLC
(Owner) John Lavigne, H L. Turner Group, Inc. (project engineer) Robert Prokop, Wetland
Consulting Services (wetland consultant) requesting changes to the approved plan.

Mr. Lavigne informed the Commission he has had conversations with Bill Thomas regarding
concerns raised relative to the slope treatment of the river embankment, i.e., what the wall is
doing now and what impact was. Mr. Lavigne met with Mr. Thomas at the site earlier in the day.
Mr. Thomas had indicated his belief the wall that is out there does meet the environmental intent
of the original submission (no greater flood impact). He stated the information provided to him
justified that, and he is satisfied. He had procedural questions where work is taking place in
prime wetland and whether or not a public hearing is required. Mr. Lavigne had responded
there would be no greater impact with the wall in place negating the need for a public hearing.

Mr. Lavigne relayed to Mr. Thomas his discussion with the Commission regarding the stability of
the wall. Some blocks have moved as a result of months where the wall has seen flood and the
installation of the Armorflex. Nashua Riverwalk intends to re-plumb and square the stones that
have moved. This work cannot be done until the summer when the water level is decreased. It
is at that time the landscaping provided in the amended plan is proposed to be completed.

Mr. Lavigne expressed to the Commission he has been encouraging Mr. Thomas to provide a
written response to the Commission, and that Mr. Thomas had stated his intent to provide such
a letter within a few days.

The Nashua Riverwalk is anxious to receive a decision from the Commission as some of their
Certificates of Occupancy are near.

Ms. Bretz stated her biggest concern being the stability of the wall. Not having the expertise to
make such a determination, she had asked DES to inspect. However, Mr. Thomas has stated
DES also lacks such expertise. Mr. Bretz suggested Mr. Lavigne may be able to hire an expert
who could certify the wall’s stability.

Mr. Lavigne responded the wall that is in place is not new. Two segments of the wall existed
below the waterline before the project began. He feels they have added an element of stability
with the work they have done (Armorflex). The few blocks that have moved will be made plumb
and square. Each block is laid on the subsequent block to ensure center of gravity stays within
bottom three stones. Drift Pinning (grout hole and secure a pin to lodge stones) may be
appropriate. This will need to be discussed with the civil engineer. The area will not be able to
be looked at until May due to the time schedule of the engineer.

Mr. Bruce stated only one stone has moved, and only two need to be re-plumbed/squared. The
wall has been through a 500-year flood without movement. It needs aesthetic work such as
chinking (filling voids with other rocks). Even if the wall failed, the Armorflex is what is keeping
the embankment in place. The wall is really just an added safety measure to the Armorflex.
There is no structural requirement for the wall. “It is now aesthetics. It has no real additional
structural requirement.”

Mr. Bruce went on to say “My request is not to be held up. I did say I would fix it. I haven’t had
the condition. They lower the river in June. We won’t need a barge. We will be able to stand

Nashua Conservation Commission

there. They lower the water so much in June you can actually walk in front of the wall. They do
that every year, and that is when we anticipate fixing it.”
Ms. Bretz asked what was being sought from the Commission at this time. Mr. Lavoie replied
he would like the Commission to be able to say they are comfortable with the responses that
have been done, and are comfortable going to Code Enforcement with some sort of release on
some of the units. He stated, without having some additional feedback from the Commission he
is not sure what else they can do to provide a response. They have tried to answer the question
on the structural stability.

Mr. Bruce remarked the intent of the wall was not to hold the embankment, the intent of the wall
is added to what is intended to hold up the embankment, which is the Armorflex.

Mr. Newhall questioned how long the river would be down for. The response was a week to ten
days. Mr. Bruce stated it would take no longer than a week to perform the work.

Mr. Bruce remarked they have been promised a letter from DES for three weeks, and they call

Ms. Bretz asked each commissioner for their opinion. The general consensus was the
Commission desires certification from DES that they have reviewed the facts and are
comfortable with moving forward.

Mr. Lavigne stated, “I am very sure, talking to Bill, that the letter we get from them isn’t going to
be just a cart blanche we are satisfied. It is going to be satisfied providing we get the other
following documentation as these things get completed because what he is also going to do is
condition the existing permit with the clause that he is required to go out in the summertime to
do this, it requires some observation from some third party whether it be us or others, and a
report made in order to complete the file. I know that is going to get done. That will be a

Mr. Bruce asked to add to the discussion - “Because this is a June repair, I have one other item,
which is – well we are fixing another problem. This is an enormously complicated building. I
don’t think anyone here is unhappy with what I have built. I don’t think anyone has said that I
have done shoddy work or there has been an instance of me not doing what I have said I have
done. As a matter of fact if you go down there now I have had to add extra railings, which
wasn’t on the original plan, for safety reasons. They came to me and said we have some safety
issues relative to kids going right off the end and into the water and over the waterfall, and this
is a concern. You will notice that I’ve added railings to the full extent of walkway.”

“The contractor that was supposed to repair the wall all summer I have since fired because of
the work that he has done. That really became an issue. I said this isn’t acceptable, fix it or I
will have to get someone else to do it.”

“I do have a very large investment. There have been geotechs, soil engineers – this has been a
highly engineered product on a very difficult site, and I am not unreasonable I would like you not
to be unreasonable. Because it can’t happen until June, I tied two gates going in that I have on
back order that I can’t get.”

“I am going to ask for a number of Certificate of Occupancies. I am doing it on a unit-by-unit
basis. Five wouldn’t be enough. I already have five sales. Those will be closed by March.”

Nashua Conservation Commission

Ms. Bretz stated what may be done is approving the changes conditional upon receipt of written
confirmation from NHDES.

Mr. Bruce remarked then he would have to tell the people who he has in a hotel at the moment
that they can plan on moving in God knows when. He stated “what I would request is that you
give me a limit of, because I can’t do the work until June anyway, you give me a limit of ten
occupancies. Ten units would allow me – that is less than half the building. That will give me to
June. Believe me I have to sell them all to meet my requirements, and won’t keep people – I
have people who have literally sold their houses. I am a little behind schedule. I don’t want to
tell them oh by the way I know you sold your house, but you can’t move in your new place until
June. Aside from losing sales I would probably get sued. I don’t think it is necessary. What
you are asking for verbally you have been told you are going to get. I have not – we’ve had an
issue that the engineer’s take responsibility for. They didn’t respond in the summer and then we
just had some circumstances. John got sick. It happens. He did try to get it done. No one has
intentionally neglected they just thought it would get done sooner. DES has been sort of we
have bigger fish to fry, meet the requirements, we’ll get to it when we get to it, we have ones
that are real serious problems. Really that has been their attitude. Very nicely, but this isn’t that
big a deal to them. It is to us, but I don’t control the State.

I have done this before; have a limit on the number of occupancy permits that I can get. Believe
me that is a huge hammer that you have over my head, and I am willing to do that. I just need a
number that is reasonable. I had hoped that I would have this letter sooner, and they might add
another condition I have to do something else. I just don’t know I haven’t got the letter. I
haven’t personally talked to him. It doesn’t mean I won’t, but at least it gives me a reasonable
amount of time to close a project, a multi-million dollar project that the City has put a million
dollars into themselves, and I don’t want any bad press over something that I don’t want it to
appear that I have done something conservation wise that is- appears – if you hold up my
occupancy it will appear that I have done something egregious, which I haven’t.”

When asked for an opinion from Planning, Mr. Sawyer stated it is common practice for the
Planning Department and the Planning Board to put conditions on prior to X number of
Certificates of Occupancy. It is a very common practice. It is generally a reasonable way of
getting things resolved. Often times it is done with large projects. He believes the department
would be comfortable with this approach.

Mr. Bruce remarked, “You can’t say that this is a crisis scenario. I just would ask that you be
flexible. Obviously if I had an enormous violation and was creating … tape inaudible –
speaker away from microphone.. running into the river or all kinds of debris. I have been very
diligent. I came in with a new plan. If you don’t like my new plan I will do the old plan. At this
point I don’t care. My proposal is 10 occupancy permits, not to exceed, until I get you this letter
that you are looking for from the State. The reason I do that is I don’t know what this letter is
going to say so it will give me a little more time. I just don’t know. I can’t get an answer out of
the State. It isn’t like I could come to the board here and talk to you like I do now and say well
what about this and what about like I did with the landscaping. I don’t have that luxury, and
basically they are like we are busy. I am kind of in a tough spot here. That is the flexibility I
would like. I don’t think it is really unreasonable if you go down and look at what I have done. It
is a nice job.”

Nashua Conservation Commission




Commissioner Meyer unanimously elected to the position of Chairman.

Commissioner Newhall unanimously elected to the position of Vice-Chairman.

Commissioner Frasca unanimously elected to the position of Treasurer.

Commissioner Gillespie unanimously elected to the position of Clerk.


There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Bretz declared the meeting
of February 6, 2007 adjourned at 8:55 p.m.


Shared By: