Conservation Commission

NASHUA CONSERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2010 MEETING MINUTES A regular meeting of the Nashua Conservation Commission was held on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at 7:05 p.m. in City Hall Room 208. Chairman Peggy Trivilino presided; Members of the Commission Present: Nicholas Frasca, Vice-Chairman (8:25 p.m.) Mary Brundage, Treasurer (7:15 p.m.) Michael Gallagher Richard Gillespie, Clerk David MacLaughlin (8:00 p.m.) Cynthia Overby Members of the Commission Absent: Also in Attendance: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Lucy St. John, Deputy Planning Manager Colleen Mailloux, Gale Associates, Inc. Erik W. Strand, Gale Associates, Inc. Royce N. Rankin, Manager, Nashua Airport Michael Rosenblum, Treasurer, Nashua Airport Authority Dennis Stephens, Director, Nashua Airport Authority Fred Britton, Vice-Chairman, Nashua Airport Authority Dan Nitzsche, GZA Geo Environmental, Inc. Armand DeFresne, Gale Associates, Inc. Suzanne Harvey, 8 Crawford Lane Ryan Young, Society for the Protection of NH Forests APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Conservation Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 5, 2010 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TRIVILINO TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS From: Jacquie Davidson Re: 20 Pell Ave., Tax Map 106, Lot 26 Ms. Davidson has provided a letter and two sets of photographs of the completed project at her home. The photos, where taken during the project and at completion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED Nashua Conservation Commission Page 2 of 10 10/19/10 From: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Shoreland Impact Permit. Wetlands File # 2010-02457 Re: 4 Shady Lane, Map B- Lot 421 NHDES has approved a Shoreland impact permit for 4 Shady Lane, to impact approximately 4,698 ft.². The purpose of this permit is for the expansion of a residential dwelling and driveway and the installation of storm water controls. The permit will expire on 10/1/2015. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TRIVILINO ON THE QUESTION Commissioner Gillespie questioned the intent. Ms. St. John stated the project falls within the jurisdiction of NH DES Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, but does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. MOTION CARRIED From: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Wetlands Bureau - File # 2010-00616 Re: Nashua Municipal Airport Map E- Lot 60 Letter addressed to Royce Rankin, from Gino Infascelli, DES Wetlands Bureau, regarding approval of Dredge and Fill Application provided to the Conservation Commission as part of the application. Project will fill 11.63 acres (506,605 sq. ft.) of predominately palustrine wetlands for the relocation, shifting, reconstruction, and extension of an existing runway to comply with Federal Aviation Administration standards; relocate a parallel taxiway, install obstruction lights, and remove over 10.3 acres of wetlands. Mitigation includes payment of $2,021,412.57 into the State’s Aquatic Resource Mitigation Fund. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED OLD BUSINESS 93 Perimeter Rd, Nashua Airport Authority, (Owners/Applicant). Tax Map E, Lots 60. The purpose of the application is to relocate, shift and reconstruct runway 14-32, with accompanying site changes. There shall be approximately 388,121 ft.² of temporary wetland impacts of a prime wetland; 5,663 ft.² of permanent impacts to a prime wetland; 500,942 ft.² of permanent impacts to “other wetland”; 152,025 ft.² of temporary impacts to a wetland buffer and 282,706 ft.² of permanent impacts to the wetland buffer. The wetland scientist is Ian Trefry, GZA Geo Environmental, Inc. Airport consultants are Gale Associates. Ms. Mailloux informed the Commission the project is essential to bring the airport into compliance with FAA standards for runway to taxiway separation for runway safety areas. The project consists of; shifting runway 14-32 three hundred feet north towards Amherst Street, the construction of standard runway safety areas around the relocated runway, the addition of a 150’ extension to the runway 14 end (Northeast end of runway), and the addition of a 350’ paved safety area at the 32 end of the runway, and upon completion shifting the Nashua Conservation Commission Page 3 of 10 10/19/10 runway north, will move the taxiway slightly closer to Amherst Street. Ultimately they will move noise impacts away from the residential neighborhoods up closer with Amherst Street. She stated they have gone through a thorough Alternatives Analysis. Runway safety areas are a bare minimum standard that FAA requires all airports have to meet. She explained there has to be a surface that can support, under normally dry conditions, the weight of an aircraft or emergency vehicle in the event an aircraft were to leave the runway. Given that, they cannot have wetlands in a runway safety area. If they were to put runway safety areas on the runway where it is currently located, the impacts would be far greater than what would occur by shifting and relocating the runway centerline. The Alternatives Analysis summarizes the project and its proposed improvements, which result in the least impact to the environment while still meeting the basic requirements the FAA has put on the airport. She pointed out none of the proposed changes are up to the discretion of the Airport Authority. The Authority is charged with ensuring the airport operates safely and avoids liability for the City by ensuring the airport is in compliance with FAA standards. Mr. Strand stated since submitting the application to the Commission they have received the Alteration of Terrain Permit from NH DES. He offered to provide a copy to the Commission. Ms. Mailloux commented the project would result in a net improvement of any off-site drainage, i.e., less water leaving the site than currently occurs. They have coordinated with Pennichuck Water Works who has reviewed the plan and provided a letter stating they are amendable to the project and believe it meets storm water management standards. They have also ensured the project meets the city’s requirements for storm water management. Ultimately the project will result in a net benefit with less drainage leaving the airport. Chairman Trivilino remarked the airport has done an excellent job of minimizing environmental impact. She stated the Commission does not take issue with the project itself, but with the lack of timely notification of the Public Hearing associated with the Dredge & Fill Application and the form in which mitigation is being proposed. Due to the timing of receipt of the notice of public hearing, the Commission was unable to provide input on the project. She was also of the belief residents downstream of Spectacle Brook were not provided the opportunity to provide input. With regard to the issue of mitigation being in the form of a monetary contribution to the NH DES Aquatic Resource Mitigation (ARM) Fund, the Commission felt as though it was not consulted as to possible mitigation sites within the City. She noted the airport had considered parcels, which were found to be unsuitable, but did not approach the Commission for suggestions of other potential parcels. She added a significant area of wetlands within the City of Nashua, which are part of our aquifer/watershed will be impacted and the funding that could offset that by helping to mitigate wetlands in other places won’t be going to Nashua. In essence, the City of Nashua is losing wetlands and mitigation funds. She questioned whether the contribution had already occurred. With regard to the notification of the Public Hearing, Ms. Mailloux explained the hearing was organized and noticed by the Wetlands Bureau of NH DES, and the airport had no control over the noticing. She apologized for the Conservation Commission not receiving notification until after the hearing had been conducted. With regard to the contribution to the ARM Fund, she stated it has not yet been made. She explained the airport has gone through the Army Corps permitting process for the standard Dredge & Fill and Alteration of Terrain Permit. Collectively the agencies have agreed the contribution of approximately $2.1 million is appropriate mitigation for wetland impacts. She noted the contribution to the Fund could not be made until grants are received through the FAA process (later in the spring). She noted the airport had worked with planning staff and were provided with a list of parcels for consideration. Initially the Army Corps of Engineers and NH DES had instructed the airport look for possible mitigation parcels Nashua Conservation Commission Page 4 of 10 10/19/10 within a 1 square mile radius of the airport. They widened the area to a 3 square mile radius and contacted property owners via written and oral communication. The FAA could only offer current fair market value for purchase and property owners contacted felt they could not sell their property for fair market value in a down economy. She noted if time allowed, they would be looking for a 15-1 ratio (170 acres) to be put in preservation. The time and effort that would be required to acquire the land and the cost benefit analysis indicated a larger bang for the buck could be made with contribution to the ARM Fund. She noted her understanding of the Commission’s frustration with the possibility of mitigation funding going outside of Nashua, but reiterated the funds would be paid to the ARM Fund and would be given to projects within this watershed. She noted the Commission could work with NH DES if a suitable project can be identified in Nashua and NH DES would look favorably towards putting those funds towards Nashua project(s). She stated, at this point, the contribution is beyond the control of the airport. Mayor Lozeau stated her understanding if the contribution is made to the ARM Fund Nashua would have to apply for funding like any other community, Nashua project(s) would be weighted like any other community’s project(s), and funding would be awarded to whichever project(s) are deemed to have the largest benefit to the watershed. She questioned, since the funds would not be disbursed until Spring, should Nashua be able to identify and present a project to NH DES, would there be a window of opportunity for the funds to be diverted prior to their disbursement. Mr. Dufresne responded he could not answer for the NH DES. He remarked, having never worked with NH DES and this program prior to this, his initial thinking was that all funds would be earmarked for Nashua. He noted the first priority is to mitigate within the watershed in which damage is taking place, if that can occur. He commented NH DES requirements are not difficult to meet (50% upland/50% wetland). He commented if Nashua could identify parcel(s) that meet the criteria he could not see why the project(s) would be rejected. Ms. St. John noted the letter to Mr. Rankin from NH DES, Wetland Bureau identified a stipulation (#18) that receipt of a one-time payment to the ARM Fund be received within 120 days of approval (approval letter dated 9-13-10). Ms. Mailloux stated she has coordinated with Mr. Gino Infascelli, DES Wetlands Bureau, requested an extension, and has received notification an extension of one year from the date of the letter will be allowed. Ms. St. John questioned whether the extension had been acknowledged in writing and if the Commission could expect to receive a copy. Ms. Mailloux responded the letter had not been received as of yet and that she would provide the Commission with a copy. Ms. St. John noted NH DES has stated Nashua would have to compete with other communities. She questioned whether mitigation funds would be earmarked for the Nashua River Watershed or the Merrimack River Watershed and noted the Merrimack River Watershed encompasses 30 some odd communities, which would result in stiffer competition for project funding. She added her understanding there were no guarantees funding would be allocated to Nashua. Ms. Mailloux stated there is no guarantee funding would be allocated to Nashua. The program is that of NH DES and the airport has no control over how it is implemented. Chairman Trivilino commented the Mayor had asked the question of whether funding could be diverted to Nashua in the event appropriate lands for mitigation could be identified prior to the contribution to the Fund being made, and questioned whether it was the opinion of the airport the funds would have to go directly to the ARM Fund and Nashua would have to get in line with any other communities seeking funding for projects. Ms. Mailloux responded based on the Army Corps permit and standard Dredge & Fill permit the funds would have to be directed to the ARM Fund. She reiterated whether NH DES, instead of putting those funds out for a watershed wide competition could coordinate with the City prior to and have something lined up so that once the payment is made it could be diverted to the city, is a question that would have to be posed to NH DES. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 5 of 10 10/19/10 Ms. St. John questioned whether there was some specific requirement at the FAA level for the airport to engage in a Memorandum of Understanding rather than working directly with the community where impacts would occur. Mr. Rankin stated he did not have an answer to that question. Mr. Dufresne stated the Memorandum of Understanding is between the Army Corps and the NH DES. The choice of the airport was to accept or not accept the permit under their conditions. Their condition was if 175 acres could not be found for preservation, which, after a good faith effort they were unable to do, the only other option was to make a contribution to the ARM Fund. He noted the Army Corps agreed, in this case, it wasn’t practical for mitigation to go in any other direction. Mr. Dufresne commented there are 40+ businesses at the airport, and a major concern was not allowing the runway to deteriorate to a point where it is not usable. In its current condition, it is substantially out of compliance with FAA standards. If there were to be an accident, the airport has been told it is out of compliance. He noted the airport expended approximately $60,000 in their effort to acquire land for preservation. Chairman Trivilino commented what was being said was NH DES and the Army Corps of Engineers make the determination and the concerns of the City are an afterthought. Mr. Nitzsche responded only if the point is reached where there is no potential land for mitigation. He noted there were discussions on whether the contribution could be in the form of some land preservation and the remaining in a monetary contribution. The Army Corps response was it would be a hollow permit if you don’t have at least a verbal commitment from someone interested in discussing selling their land. They were unable to get such a commitment. Chairman Trivilino questioned why land acquisition could not occur anywhere within the boundaries of the city and/or funds be used to improve wetlands the City already owns that have become degraded. Mr. DuFresne again responded such questions would have to be asked of NH DES. He added, if the city were to identify parcels for consideration, Gale Associates would be happy to assist in any way they could with lobbying before NH DES. Ms. St. John remarked some of the information submitted spoke of $800,000 in avigation easements and asked if that $800,000 was part of the approximate $2.1 million or separate from that. Ms. Mailloux responded the easements are separate. She added the avigation easements are acquisition of easements on individual properties in order to allow the airport to maintain clear surfaces, i.e., purchasing easements to be able to clear trees on individual properties off Pine Hill Road and Charron Ave. Commissioner Overby questioned how the airport would contain an environmental disaster (away from Spectacle Brook). Ms. Mailloux responded the airport has a Spill Prevention Control Countermeasure Plan in place. If there were some type of fuel spill, i.e., if a mobile re-fueler on the airport had a leak, there is a plan in place that requires mobile re-fueler trucks have spill containment available. There is a series of procedures on who to contact, what to do. In the event of something catastrophic, i.e., plane crash, etc.; the fire department is the first responder, the trained spill containment response. They would be the responsible party for implementing the containment measures. Mr. Rankin added when Perimeter Road was built back in 1992 they put in the ground two 10,000 gallon tanks so that if there were a tip over coming in, any fuel that spilled out of there and got to the drainage would go into the containment tanks. Commissioner Overby questioned how storm water would be diverted into the tanks. Mr. Rankin explained the tanks have large valves that would be shut off. That would allow you to pump the contaminated fuel, water, etc. out of them and dispose of it before it gets into Spectacle Brook. He added it has been his experience if an airplane were to crash and a fuel spill occur there would be a fire associated with it and most of the fuel would burn. Commissioner Overby noted the existence of several endangered and threatened species be it animal or plant and questioned their location. Ms. Mailloux noted they have been coordinating with the Natural Heritage Nashua Conservation Commission Page 6 of 10 10/19/10 Bureau on avoidance and mitigation measures for is a turtle species they have identified as likely to be located near the railroad tracks. Mr. Nitzsche explained the construction site would be reviewed prior to placement of silt fencing to ensure there are no turtles in the area. When they conducted a field walk the Natural Heritage Bureau had said there was no way the northern wetland along the railroad tracks is habitat for the turtle, and that further to the west in the larger marsh area is clearly habitat for the turtle, but highly unlikely because of the perimeter fence located around the entirely of the airport. It is unlikely turtles can actually migrate into the site. They have conducted several studies in the area to ensure there isn’t one found inside the site. However, prior to construction they will set up a barrier that will be inspected periodically to make sure the turtle didn’t come into the site or get missed. They are required to do an education program with contractors so they know what the turtle looks like and that all turtles get moved or that GZA is contacted so they can move it to the other side of the silt fence. In terms of plants they are mainly at the eastern end (birds foot violet, blazing star, milkweed, and wild lupine). There are tens of thousands of birds foot violet on the property most likely because of the mowing regime. They coordinated with the endangered species program on doing some transplanting and replanting later on. When asked where they would be transplanted to, Mr. Nitzsche responded to other areas on the airport that are suitable habitat (eastern end) and would be outside of the work area. They would be moved out during construction and then moved back when the project is complete. Chairman Trivilino asked for clarification the purpose of the project is to increase the distance between the taxiway and the runway, and was told that is the purpose. Ms. Mailloux added they are moving the runway further than what is required because it allows the existing runway to remain operational during construction thereby supporting the businesses located there, and an added benefit in moving it further than required reduced the wetland impact over what it would be if it were moved just to meet the bare minimum standard (they will be able to shift the taxiway without increasing any wetland impact). Mr. Britton remarked it is important to understand the current runway (14-32) has reached the end of its useful life. The project simply constructs a similar runway 300’ to the northeast. Commissioner Overby questioned what would become of the space where the existing runway is located. Mr. Strand stated the area would be used for a drainage system. It will be a turf infield area, a grassed area in between where all of the BMPs and storm water management systems will be located. Commissioner Gillespie identified typos within the application, which will be addressed by the applicant. He noted difficulty following the leaders on the map to areas 12 and 10 and questioned how area 12 differs from area 10. Mr. Nitzsche stated area 10 is more of a forested area where area 12 has open areas and more emergent marsh with forested areas as well. When asked, he stated there is no real boundary between the two, however, one is predominantly forested and the other has a combination of a couple of different types of wetlands in it. When asked about areas 1 and 2, he stated area 2 is an open-cut area that was cleared a few years back and area 1 remains a forested system that has not been touched. Commissioner Gillespie requested boundaries be delineated either through the use of aerial photographs or notations on the map. When asked about areas 8 and 9, Mr. Nitzsche stated area 8 refers to the drain system (mown portion of the primary surface to the runway) and area 9 is an untouched forested system. Chairman Trivilino questioned the actual acreage of the airport and noted the GIS datasheet identifies it as 325.08 acres and the proposed airport improvement project narratives submitted with the October 2010 ZBA application lists it as 390 acres. Ms. Mailloux stated 390 as the correct acreage. When asked, she suggested the difference between the acreage could relate to three other parcels that abut the property, but are technically separate parcels in the city’s GIS. They are part of the airport, but are identified as different parcels. Ms. St. John noted within the storm water report submitted to NH DES (March 10th) approximately 433 acres are identified, the city’s GIS identifies 325 acres, and the information submitted to the ZBA states 390 acres. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 7 of 10 10/19/10 Mr. Strand stated his belief the acreage listed within the storm water report includes the watershed that was analyzed as some parcels outside of airport property contribute storm water to the airport facility. He added there is also an area of the LCHIP land that contributes water onto the airport property. Ms. St. John questioned whether Spectacle Brook is identified as part of the Nashua River Watershed or the Merrimack River Watershed. She stated if said to be part of the Merrimack watershed there would be a larger geographical area that could compete for monies from the ARM Fund. Mr. Strand stated they analyzed Spectacle Brook and Pennichuck. Deerwood Drive effectively divides those areas. He could not say without further review where Spectacle Brook goes. Mr. Britton suggested GZA Geo Environmental, Inc. and Gale Associates could conduct further review to provide a response back to the Commission. With regard to notification of public hearing, Mr. Britton suggested a combination of airport management and Gale Associates could follow-up on the issue. Mr. Strand stated he had spoken with Lori Sommer shortly after the May 18th meeting and she has assured him she would work with the Commission to assist in getting an application before NH DES. Mr. Strand assured the Commission NH DES was provided with the abutter list and those to be notified, which included the Conservation Commission. Mr. Dufresne stated this project will go on for the next two years, and should anything come up that would be of consequence to the Commission, the airport will provide notification. Commissioner MacLaughlin joined the meeting. Chairman Trivilino informed him the conversation was in regard to the lack of communication between the NH DES, Army Corps of Engineers and the Conservation Commission. Airport personnel have committed to take it upon themselves to notify the Commission with regard to future hearings, etc. She requested the applicant sum up the discussion on mitigation. Mr. DeFresne stated: “The airport is required by the Army Corps of Engineers and NH DES to submit to their Aquatic Resource Management Fund. It is a bit of money it is a little bit over $2 million. When we as the applicant, when the airport as the applicant goes before the Corps and NH DES they tell us what they want. We went through a series of steps. We didn’t start with the ARM Fund. We started actually with; can we re- create the wetlands and so on and went through a series of options where you look whether or not they are feasible or reasonable or not and then if they are not then you go to the next one and that sort of thing. We finally whittled our way unfortunately down to the ARM Fund through the experience of having called a multiple list of landowners. We had to acquire about 175 acres and there really was no significant 1 or 2 pieces, they were all in small bits along that Witches Brook area primarily but they there were a couple of parcels that were disconnected in the Pennichuck Area and then some further in Nashua. The response that we got was overwhelmingly we would be crazy to sell you our land or even the rights to our land in this economy. That was the primary response that we got from landowners. So we went to the agencies, the Corps and DES with that experience and they looked at it themselves, and plus on top of that to even further complicate it we have time limitations. The money is not going to be there forever. This is about a $15 million project. The FAA is committed to doing it. They say the money is available and we have to get on it we can’t wait five years to get to it. So our only option at that point was to enter into the ARM Fund, which we did do based upon the natural land values. We ran through their formula and that is how they came up with the $2 million Now they do not have the $2 million and it is unlikely that they will have it before late spring early summer. That is the typical funding swing for the FAA. The way that will work is the FAA will grant the money to the airport the airport will pay the ARM Fund that it is obligated to do. The permit itself had a deadline date on it of 120 days after its issue or whatever. We called them and they are sending us a letter extending that timeline because that is just unreasonable in terms of we just can’t get the money. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 8 of 10 10/19/10 Now the Mayor has some interesting questions; can she intervene in that period and get in the cue or get a heads up on projects that would benefit Nashua in that fund and our response to her is that we don’t know for a fact. That is a question that really belongs with DES. I think the Corps will go along with anything DES would like. That is what we find. I think coordinating with the Corps is a nice thing because you may get some support there. I don’t know, but I don’t think it is necessary that the Corps be intricately involved. If you came up with something that met the DES requirements, I don’t think the Corps would object. Also if you do come up with something we would be happy to take a look at it for you at no charge because we have been involved with this now for a couple of years and are quite familiar with it. The last thing I would like to say is I would encourage you to be proactive on this. I don’t think this money is going to float down to Nashua. I think Nashua has got to go get it. I don’t know anything. I live right next door, but I am not that familiar with the City of Nashua, I couldn’t identify a blank piece of land that would qualify if my life depended on it, but you might know some and if you do know some then I would be happy to come with Colleen, take a look at what it is you have, and give you our assessment, which is not the final word, but our assessment of what we think would give you a better chance. We are not a party to the discussion we are told what to do, and we are as frustrated as you are.” Ms. Mailloux stated: “The other point that could be quite important, Lucy has done some research on the Nashua Watershed versus the Merrimack Watershed. Erik and I are going to go back and look, our impacts are within the area that would contribute to Spectacle Brook, which we believes outlets into Nashua River and would then be part of the Nashua River Watershed, which is a significantly smaller competition area I suppose as the case may be. So that is something we’re going to double check that and that might really narrow down the number of projects in the pool.” Chairman Trivilino remarked it appears NH DES pulls the strings. She stated she had asked Mr. DeFresne why the money couldn’t be used if given to Nashua to purchase other conservation land or used to restore and mitigate degraded wetlands that might be outside of the geographical limits around the airport set by DES rules and regulations. Commissioner MacLaughlin stated his agreement the Commission should be proactive in seeking funding from the ARM Fund. He commented as a conservationist he believes any mitigation resulting from a project should be focused back on the community affected. He stated his belief the Commission needs to take a firm stand on that position as should there be any further mandated projects by the Federal, State, or local Government the situation exists where there won’t be much land open and possibly subject for acquisition for conservation purposes. He stated the need to work with the administration to find resolution to the current situation, as the form of mitigation is the issue he has with the application. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MACLAUGHLIN TO TABLE THE APPLICATION DATED OCTOBER 5, 2010 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 93 PERIMETER ROAD, TAX MAP E/LOT 60 UNTIL THE COMMISSION CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED Ms. Mailloux noted a site walk occurred last spring. She offered the opportunity to conduct another site walk to all or any of the commissioners. Mr. Britton questioned whether there was any way the Airport Authority could be of assistance to the Commission in their endeavors with the State. Mr. Dufresne offered to contact NH DES and ascertain what the Nashua Conservation Commission Page 9 of 10 10/19/10 path of least resistance would be with regard to Nashua submitting application(s) for funding from the ARM Fund. Commissioner Gallagher stated his belief the Airport has done a good job detailing the project and its necessity. However, the mitigation piece is essential to project approval. He noted the impact is occurring in Nashua and mitigation remedies should occur in Nashua as well. Commissioner Gillespie questioned whether the ARM Fund is currently funded and was told it is. Ms. St. John noted when monies are added to the fund NH DES makes an announcement on their website and begins the application process. Mr. Dufresne reiterated the airport would do whatever it can to be of assistance in the Commission’s endeavors to gain funding. NEW BUSINESS - None GENERAL DISCUSSION • New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions 40th Annual Meeting Saturday, November 6, 2010, 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m., Rundlett Middle School, Concord Commissioner Gillespie commented the meeting is very informative and helpful for new members, and is in fact designed for first year commissioners. He felt attendance at the workshops would be worthwhile. He noted the City would reimburse the cost of attendance. • Summaries of NHDES related environmental legislation adopted during the 2009 New Hampshire legislative session. NON-PUBLIC SESSION MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE THAT THE COMMISSION GO INTO NON-PUBLIC SESSION BY ROLL CALL PURSUANT TO RSA 91-A:3, II (D) TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION, SALE OR LEASE OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHICH, IF DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC, WOULD LIKELY BENEFIT A PARTY OR PARTIES WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSE TO THOSE OF THE GENERAL COMMUNITY MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MACLAUGHLIN A Viva Voce Roll Call was conducted, which resulted as follows: Yea: Commissioner Trivilino, Commissioner Brundage, Commissioner Gillespie, Commissioner MacLaughlin, Commissioner Overby 5 Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED The Commission went into non-public session at 8:22 p.m. The Commission came out of non-public session at 8:45 p.m. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE THAT THE COMMISSION, BY ROLL CALL, SEAL THE MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC SESSION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION VOTES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY WOULD NO LONGER BE SERVED MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TRIVILINO Nashua Conservation Commission Page 10 of 10 10/19/10 A Viva Voce Roll Call was conducted, which resulted as follows: Yea: Commissioner Trivilino, Commissioner Frasca, Commissioner Brundage, Commissioner Gillespie, Commissioner MacLaughlin, Commissioner Overby 6 Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED INFORMATIONAL ITEMS • Albert Terrell Property Update Mr. Young informed the Commission the consultant from Exeter Environmental performed a Phase I Environmental Study, which did not identify any areas of concern. They are in the process of acquiring the title opinion, and moving towards a November 10th closing. Chairman Trivilino questioned whether the date had been coordinated with the Office of the Mayor and was informed the Mayor had signed the Purchase & Sales with the November 10th closing date in mind. Staff will be working with the Mayor’s office on the closing arrangements. • Rita Terrell Property Update Mr. Young informed the commission of the tentative closing date of December 9, 2010. The Phase I Environmental Study has been conducted and the report is in the process of being completed. He noted there may be some items that need to be addressed, however, they are pleased with the results. • LCHIP Property Site Visit Date The dry weather date has been set for Wednesday, October 27, 2010 from 1:00 – 4:00 p.m. In the event of inclement weather, the site visit would be re-scheduled. PROJECT UPDATES BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner MacLaughlin informed the Commission the demolition project at 105 Spit Brook Road has begun. Commissioner Overby questioned whether photographs have been received for the project located at 8 Lear Drive (Patricia Rodriguez & Christos Svoleantopoulos - Tax Map E/Lot 1410) as required in the stipulations associated with project approval (4-20-10). ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO ADJOURN MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED The Conservation Commission meeting of October 19, 2010 was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Attest: Richard Gillespie Committee Clerk