Conservation Commission

NASHUA CONSERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 2012 MEETING MINUTES A regular meeting of the Nashua Conservation Commission was held on Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 208. Chairman David MacLaughlin presided; Members of the Commission Present: Michael Gallagher, Treasurer Richard Gillespie, Clerk Mary Brundage Cynthia Overby Suzanne Harvey, Alternate Members of the Commission Absent: Peggy Trivilino, Vice-Chairman Also in Attendance: Lucy St. John, Deputy Planning Manager Daniel Moriarty, Aldermanic Liaison (7:40 p.m.) Kathryn D. Vitale, Alternate Aldermanic Liaison (7:50 p.m.) John Lavigne, H.L. Turner Group Jim Petropulos, Hayner Swanson Dick Cane, John J. Flatley Co. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Conservation Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 17, 2012 The following amendment was offered: The minutes should reflect Commissioner Brundage as a member of the sub-committee, and as such, that she was re-appointed at the January meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE AS AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARVEY MOTION CARRIED Site Walk Notes – Southline Woods Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 23, 2012 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED Site Walk Notes – Tara Ridge Apartments – Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 6, 2012 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRUNDAGE MOTION CARRIED Nashua Conservation Commission Page 2 of 17 02/07/12 OLD BUSINESS Southline Wood; Conservation Condominium Subdivision, 40 Groton Road, Map D/Lots 6, 7, and 355. Owner CMI Leasing Corp., George Hall, Manager, Peter Schauer, Wetland Scientist. Alteration of Terrain (AoT) Permit #7838B A conceptual review of the site development was discussed by the Commission at its December 18, 2007 meeting. Planning Board approval of subdivision application in May 2008 (expired). AoT Permit Expiration date June 27, 2014; original permit issued June 27, 2007. Site Walk conducted by Commission on January 23, 2012. Pending a formal submittal of a new application to the Commission. Ms. St. John informed the Commission an application has been received, and the item will appear on the agenda for the Commission’s meeting of February 21, 2012. NEW BUSINESS City Owner Jackson Mills Dam, Dam Crest Gate Flood Mitigation Project. Presentation by John Lavigne of H.L. Turner Group to provide an overview of the proposed improvements. The dam is located on the Nashua River, a prime wetland. Mr. Lavigne stated he was before the Commission to provide information on a flood mitigation project his company has identified in Nashua, which has both private and public stakeholders. He stated he has discussed the project with members of City staff; Tom Galligani, Economic Development Director, Roger Houston, Planning Department Manager, and Ms. St. John. The H.L. Turner Group has been pursuing engineering feasibility and looking at permitting and environmental impacts related to a project at Jackson Falls. Understanding, at some point, an application would need to be made to the Conservation Commission and believing early presentation of the project would further the goal of addressing questions and ensuring a comprehensive job is performed on the analysis, they were before the Commission to present the project. Mr. Lavigne introduced himself to the Commission as a Civil Hydrologic Engineer who has been doing engineering work on river projects for the better part of 40 years. He stated his familiarity with the City of Nashua. He noted he performed the original FEMA flood insurance study for the City of Nashua, which required the creation of the river hydraulic models identifying floodplains, etc. He has also been involved with both hydroelectric projects in the City; Mine Falls and Jackson Mills. He has also worked for the City in identifying the Riverwalk downtown. He commented the Riverwalk is elevated above the river due to the analysis and to keep the river walk out of the floodplain. He noted he has been involved in many projects over the last 30 years in Nashua, and was a contacted to develop further analysis of the river for this project. His involvement with the floodplain over the last 30 years has been the source those interested in working within that floodplain look to. Given his company’s familiarity with the area, when the question of what mitigation might be able to be performed that would positively impact the downtown area, his firm was the obvious choice to look to for possible scenarios. ▪ Introduction/Background Mr. Lavigne provided some history of the Nashua River; 532 square miles, 140 of which are controlled by the Wachusett Reservoir located in Massachusetts. He stated it is not known that the reservoir gives flood relief, however, regulating that 140 square miles that goes to the MDC for water supply does have a way of desynchronizing the way flows come down to Nashua and discharge into the Merrimack River. He remarked there are times when Merrimack River flooding backs up on the Nashua River. Some of that has to do with the Wachusett Reservoir. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 3 of 17 02/07/12 He stated the flood of record on the Nashua River as the 1936 flood (20,900 cubic feet per second (cfs)). The next largest prior to 1987 was the 1938 flood (10,200 cfs). In March of 1987 a storm created 11,200 cfs (second highest of record in Nashua). In March of 2010 a flood caused damage downtown (private property), and had a flow of around 10,100 cfs. He noted, in 1936 and 1938 the Merrimack River was high when the Nashua River was high, which was not the case in other flood events. What they are attempting to mitigate is flood frequency. FEMA has published four frequency events, which they have asked to be used in floodplain management; 10 year flood estimated at 8,550 cfs (10% probability of occurring in any given year), 50 year flood of 15,750 cfs (5% probability of occurring in any given year), 100 year flood of 20,180 cfs (1% probability of occurring in any given year), and 500 year flood of 34, 500 cfs (0.2% probability of occurring in any given year). He explained although the perception of the general public is 100 year floods only occur every 100 years, this level of event could occur in any give year. He explained FEMA and others involved in floodplain management are trying not use to use the terminology 100 year flood event, but rather discuss the probability of flooding to help dispel public perceptions on when floods can occur. He explained provided the example if a property owner has a 30-year mortgage on a property located next to a river, the probability of a 100-year flood occurring during the life of that 30-year mortgage is better than 28%. With regard to river discharge that results in damage to private properties, the threshold is about 10,500 cfs. This is important information when determining at what point flood mitigation should begin. He spoke to flood maps developed by FEMA, which are used for floodplain management, define what can and cannot be build in the floodplain, elevation at which structures are to be built, and building requirements that are tied to these requirements. With regard to impacted areas, he provided a map identifying the flow of the Merrimack River (north to south), the Nashua River (west to east), and the confluence (area of Thoreau’s Landing), which is plagued by flooding from time to time. Moving up river, the sharp bend (area of BAE complex) is also affected by flooding. At the bend near Jackson Falls is Main Street. Up river are Clocktower Place and the Cotton Mill complex. At the point of the large bend in the river is where the Millyard Technology Park is located. At that bend in the river, during flood stage, the river has to navigate an extremely sharp bend. During such times, the mass of water is so large and the speed is so great when it reaches that point it cannot make the turn fast enough resulting in flooding to private properties. He stated all of the flooding appears to be precipitated primarily at the hydraulic control, which is Jackson Dam. ▪ Flood Causes Mr. Lavigne stated flood causes are two fold; floodplain restrictions that prevent an efficient flow of water causing backwater and bridges/river crossings. There are buildings lined up right at river’s edge. In the event of a flood there is no place for water to go but in these buildings. There is no land available to provide flood relief for these properties. He provided a flood profile and explained there is a river bottom below the dam and a river bottom above the dam. There is a break in the topography of which Jackson Falls is located and it exists for a reason; there is a change in the geology of the river in this location. The dam was built in the 1800s to create a backwater that created flowage for the railroad. When they were bringing materials down from the mills and getting them onto the railroad, they needed the river high enough to be able to get up to Main Street without lifting them up with derricks. They took advantage of this by building a dam a little higher. The vertical lines on the map provided represent the bridges (downstream from Jackson Falls). The bridge on Main Street represents a restriction (smallest flow area in floodplain). The horizontal lines on the map represent the FEMA profiles for flood events. It is the 100-year event they are most interested in seeing if they can affect through mitigation. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 4 of 17 02/07/12 ▪ Mitigation Alternatives Mr. Lavigne spoke to mitigation alternatives, which focus on three different areas; 1) floodproof existing buildings, 2) make building structures flow-thru, and 3) remove/enlarge river restrictions. Floodproofing existing structures would require an extensive amount of construction, i.e., interior and exterior modifications, which in many cases is not financially viable. With regard to making the structures flow-thru, he suggested the solution in some of these old buildings would require modification of the interior structure and exterior work. Exterior work would likely result in a change to the façade of the building, which leads to questions of whether or not this is the correct approach. As far as removing or enlarging river restrictions to gain additional flow, enlarging the bridges would require the demolition of buildings, which would change the character of the downtown. Costs are prohibitive. The major restriction in the downtown is the Jackson Falls Dam. The dam sets the floodplain from the downtown all the way up through and just beyond where the Everett Turnpike crosses the river at Route 3 (near Home Depot). Jackson Falls Dam is owned by the City and was built in the late 1800s. It is a rigid timber structure (A frame) planked across in order to minimize the leakage of water going over the top. The dam was filled with rock and was constructed to leak. Over the years, through a series of modifications that took place as damage occurred (‘40s and early ‘90s), the dam was encapsulated in concrete (8-15” thick reinforced wall). The top, which was a wood buttress, was replaced with a 3’ concrete cap and the sloping A frame timber has been removed and in its place a 12” thick concrete slab. Essentially the dam is somewhat hollow in nature (under concrete is wood and rock). When asked if the dam continues to function the way it was designed to, Mr. Lavigne stated in the beginning, the dam was as high as the masonry walls surrounding it (to accommodate a level grade to the railroad). Over the years it has been getting smaller. With regard to function, it continues to back water up, but does not store water it passes it over the top. Mr. Lavigne informed the Commission the dam is currently leased by the City of Nashua to a private hydropower entity that is using it with a hydro plant to produce power (City receives royalty on an annual basis based on the amount of energy produced). The lease is up in 2014 at which point the power plant and the dam reverts back to the City for their use. He stated the dam has never acted as a flood control structure. Enough water cannot be stored behind it to draw it down and fill it with enough riverflow to attenuate reduced flood levels downstream. He stated it is what is called run of river; no drop of water that gets into the river is stored there, it eventually finds it way either over the top of the dam, through the hydro plant or the fish ladder. Commissioner Gallagher questioned if lowering the dam would affect its power capability (1,500 kw current capacity). Mr. Lavigne stated that could occur and noted his company has come up with a solution that satisfies both criteria. Mr. Lavigne reiterated there are no floodgates at the Jackson Falls Dam, i.e., all water that escapes the dam has to go over the top or through the hydro station. He reiterated the desire to pass 20,000 cfs (100-year flood capacity). He stated power is a function of flow through the turbine and the drop in elevation. It is very dependent on the head and the differential in the amount of water. What happens when flows are high, the turbine stops and as that differential gets more and more, less and less water can go through that turbine (less head differential being able to push it). The turbine is nothing more than a hole with a propeller in it and a generator attached. In its current state, the dam cannot provide any flood relief. Mr. Lavigne provided a few photographs depicting the Jackson Falls Dam and its current function. He pointed out the location of the fish ladder and its bypass, which is a notch in the dam that accommodates migratory fish that move down, drop into a plunge pool, and pass around the dam. The fish ladder is more prone for resident Nashua Conservation Commission Page 5 of 17 02/07/12 fish that want to move from this area to the impoundment. The block of concrete is the power plant where the turbine is located. Water from the turbine discharges at the base. In its current condition, the dam is likely 28’ in height from river bottom to crest of dam. In the 1800s the dam height was much greater and flooding occurred frequently in the downtown. As the railroad became defunct and the need and supply for the textiles went away they found they could lower the dam rather than rebuilding it as it started to deteriorate. Another photo depicted the downstream side of the dam and highlighted the discharge pipe that discharges to the entrance of the fish ladder to attract the fish (fish have to sense a certain velocity in the river). He noted that salmon and other cold water fish have natural instincts and genetic imprints in their migratory journey on how to navigate the river. It is hoped, over years of dropping juveniles in and having them migrate, there will be a genetic imprint in for the fish to cross the dam. When asked he stated the ladder has been in place for approximately 30 years. When asked how often it is running, Mr. Lavigne stated it works when fish are moving; the downstream bypass is on non-stop and the fish ladder runs in the fall and spring. The plant can only run power when water is available, i.e., in summer time and wintertime, it is not available. He added, in rare instances when there is June flooding, the plant can go online because there is enough water. Mr. Lavigne reiterated all of the water goes over the top of the dam, and when they started looking at what could be done to gain capacity, i.e., create more flow area through the dam in order to pass water, they considered punching a hole at the bottom and building a gate that could be operated to pass more water. In doing it they realized the entire ecosystem in the river is based on an overflow that allows the water to go over the top and create a high oxygenated area that raises the dissolved oxygen area and has a major impact in maintaining what fish, bug production, and whatever macrophytes in the area rely on. If a gate were open it would discharge warmer water, would be pocketed instead of evenly distributed, etc. It was deemed the gate would not be the solution, particularly with regard to ecology concerns. Understanding the hydro owner needs the water at the top of the dam for as long as possible, they were looking for a means of lowering the dam during times of flood and raising it back to the same level under normal conditions, in all instances keeping water flowing over the top. They started to consider if there was an optimum slice that could be taken off the dam that would afford the opportunity for some flood protection and still be manageable enough that it could be replaced with some kind of device that could put the pond back. What they found was if they took off about 5’ of the dam for about 140’ across (total width approx. 180’) and that wedge was available during a 100-year flood event, the 100-year flood level downtown could be dropped by almost 5’. If you start with a 5’ reduction downtown, as you work your way up the flood reduction gets less, but would have an influence of reducing flood levels from downtown all the way up to the Everett Turnpike (would impact 70+ properties (private and publicly owned)). ▪ Jackson Falls Crest Gate One of the techniques H.L. Turner has been involved with over the past 15 years is an adjustable crest gate. Mr. Lavigne provided photographs showing an example of the crest gate, which is a steel plate on a hinge that is mounted on the dam, is raised and lowered with an air pillow/bladder (Kevlar bag) and fed with air from a compressor on high ground in a channel that feeds the air in and deflates it as necessary. The unique thing about the system is it is not all one steel plate and one bag, they can be made in individual sections that can be raised and lowered independently. It provides a tremendous amount of flexibility to be able to control the river as flows increase (can choose to drop one section at a time). This structure will be employed at the Pawtucket Dam in Lowell, MA. His firm is doing the design of that project. He noted that designing a similar type of crest gate structure for the Jackson Mills dam here in Nashua is what is being investigated as part of evaluating flood mitigation alternatives. When asked how air in the bladders is controlled, Mr. Lavigne stated there are compressors and a computer on the side that monitors the air pressure and water levels. When asked about a failsafe, he stated the gate is constructed in 20’ sections. If a bag were to collapse, only a 20’ section would be affected. He added the gates are generally designed so that if any one section were to fail it would not create a surge of water Nashua Conservation Commission Page 6 of 17 02/07/12 downstream that would cause flooding. He added the way it is designed the air supply and the exhausts are two redundant systems; four pipes in place (one operating; filling and drawing and a backup next to it). When asked about life expectancy of the bladders, he stated they have a 60-70 year life expectancy. The bags themselves don’t deteriorate. Manufacturers warrant them for 70 years, but they know of bags installed out West that are approaching 75 years. When asked, he stated they have been used more popularly in the last 15-20 years at dams with hydropower operations or where a great deal of discharge is needed while maintaining a pond. When asked if the failsafe for computer failure was a manual override, he stated that to be the case. He added there is also a backup for the generator on the compressor. When asked if a 20’ section is standard, Mr. Lavigne stated individual sections could be smaller. He reiterated they have narrowed the size (to address flood control) to 5’ in height and 140’ in length. What remains to be determined, in looking at the gate components is what can be done in order to achieve a maximum operation of passing flow sufficiently for the downstream ecosystem and maintaining hydro operations as long as possible. When asked about appearance, Mr. Lavigne stated the crest gate would go across for 140’; however, when in the up position, water will be running over the gate at all times. He noted there would be a shadow of the gate seen behind the dam. They are hoping to disguise all of the bags with run of water. He noted the dam will be reviewed by many agencies at the local, state and federal level including the New Hampshire Division of Historic Resource. One of the issues is that the dam has changed so many times it does not have historical significance from the point of view of maintaining its existing look as it is more important to maintain its existing function, which is a dam that provides hydro power or some other means in the community. In this case, if flood control can be provided it will achieve part of the function of use. Commissioner Overby remarked the positive aspects of constructing such a gate had been stated, and asked what negative impacts might result. Mr. Lavigne responded “Like anything else it is new considering what people would normally think of how they would do this. But cons, like anything else, it is an operating system, and the point is making sure there are redundant operating schemes to make sure you are not left with a catastrophic condition to be able to do that. If these gates, like a traditional gate, had operators on top, now you are a function of mechanical device to be able to operate to make that work. We are kind of using a failsafe that it is air, without air it collapses. It is a lot easier to remove air than to get someone out in the middle of a dam to raise a gate that is plugged with debris and ice and whatever. These don’t do that, they pass debris and ice over the top. What limitations they have are minor compared to the benefits that are there. I would say they are mostly all operational and because of the user life they have you will be able to build in some redundancy that eliminates that.” When asked who would be responsible for the working of the gate, Mr. Lavigne stated that is also part of what has been done in permitting. At present, the likely operator would be the hydropower operator because he is the one required by a federal license to regulate the dam in conjunction with the City who owns it. After the lease is up, it would be the City in operation to be able to do that. There would be redundant control both from the hydro side and the City side. In order for that to occur they would have the computer that runs it to also be managed from the Public Works Department. When asked about annual operating costs, Mr. Lavigne stated them to be maintenance related (in $10,000 to $15,000 range), which would go under the contract of the hydro operator up front and then transfer over to the City at some point. The operating costs would be items such as personnel costs for an individual responsible to check the computer every day, periodic maintenance, i.e., inspection. Mr. Lavigne explained how the Crest Gate would be attached to the dam itself. He provided the example of an installation at the Essex Dam, which is similar to what would occur at Jackson Falls; wood flashboards with pins were removed, and on top of the existing masonry block dam they added a piece of concrete that includes conduits (air supply and exhaust supply), also attached is a hinge plate and a plate or crest gate, and the bladder that is fed by the conduits. The whole system is locked in place by rock anchors that are drilled Nashua Conservation Commission Page 7 of 17 02/07/12 through and secured down to ledge or to the deepest section of the dam so that the entire structure is structurally stable. Commissioner Gallagher remarked the dam at Jackson Falls is basically a concrete shell and questioned whether anything would be done to the dam itself structurally. Mr. Lavigne responded at Jackson the opposite would be done. They would remove 7’ of the dam within the 140’, replace 2’ of it with reinforced concrete slab, and rock anchor it in two places; upstream and downstream. The downstream side is going to be into the dam itself and the other will be anchored to ledge that is on the bottom of the river (through the dam on the upstream side). They would construct it in this manner so the dam would meet structural dam safety criteria of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) who regulates the power plant. He explained if the City wishes to continue to use the dam for hydropower, they would have to meet the standards, and it is desired to ensure any work that is performed meets those standards. The design is being prepared to meet the highest standard in dam stability (higher than what the State of New Hampshire would require under the Dam Bureau). Commissioner Overby questioned the length of time for installation to occur and whether or not it would interfere with fish migration, etc. Mr. Lavigne stated work would have to be performed during the low water period (beginning around July 4th and ending late September/early October). A unique aspect of Jackson Falls is to get the dam lowered enough to allow them to get on it to remove the section. He noted submerged upstream is the old dam that existed prior to 1800. When the dam is lowered the old cofferdam comes up in place and isolates the dam and makes the lower dam dry. What you have to do is connect from the old cofferdam in front of the fishway with a dike, which then encapsulates the area in order for the work to be performed. This is what occurred when work was performed in the ‘90s. When asked whether the FERC performs an inspection of the project once completed, Mr. Lavigne stated inspectors are onsite every day during construction. He added they have had preliminary discussions with FERC who has opined this project is a great addition to provide some flood mitigation and still have hydropower. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the likelihood of uncovering unexpected items when taking 7’ off of the dam. Mr. Lavigne responded any time you open an existing dam you are always in that position. He added they have reviewed the old construction records and all of the day-to-day photographic records created when they peeled the dam back in the ‘90s. They know how much void area is in the dam, etc. He spoke of the intent to maintain some of the voids so any leakage that comes through passes through. They do not want any hydrostatic pressure to build up inside, which would tend to want to lift the system off. He remarked in the middle of the base there is a 10” pipe that is always flowing with water that has collected inside and escapes at the bottom of the dam. He added they intend to stabilize the dam in more than one place, having it anchored to ledge. He commented they could lose the inside of the dam and with the rock anchors down to ledge the system would remain stable on a set of peers. He reiterated they are rock anchoring all the way down to the bedrock and any water going through is irrelevant. Speaking to the last slide in his presentation, Mr. Lavigne stated the bottom of the chart depicts the discharge of the river; shows the flows at 10 cfs, 100 cfs, 1,000 cfs, and 10,000 cfs. The top curved line represents the elevation in the flow over the current dam as it exists. Their desire is to mimic that curve as long as possible before starting to engage the gate to start to drop. The place where they start to engage the drop is at or around 10,500 cfs, which is the flow that starts impacting the downtown area, and they want to be above the point that they are not impacting hydro operation. From the river modeling that has been done, they have found if they let the water rise to above 121’ (about 5’ over the dam right now), they can drop the gate 1’. What they have done in the models is assume they have 140’, drop it 1’. When they do that they have a wedge available to pass more water. When the wedge is dropped, water level drops down 1’. When it drops down 1’ they are passing that much more water and doing it at a lower elevation because there is more flow area through the dam. As the river flows start to increase it starts to discharge more through that 1’ slot and when they reach the 120’ elevation again, they drop it the next foot. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 8 of 17 02/07/12 With present conditions, in the scenario of 100-year flood, the existing dam is at 127.4’. Under the proposed system, when they reach the point of dropping the gate the full 5’, they are at an elevation of 122. That translates going upstream. With flood elevation lower, property owners could likely appreciate a less expensive flood insurance rate and construction could be done in a different manner than occurs today (lower elevation). Mr. Lavigne informed the Commission they have approached FEMA as they have been granting insurance exemptions to projects that have these flood control structures in place, and they have a conditional letter of map revision application, which is being reviewed just to find out from them if they would do that here. When asked he stated that has occurred in other communities. Mr. Lavigne noted the stakeholders in such a project are great; FEMA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior (whose funds paid for the construction of the fish ladder and who operates the system today), the State of New Hampshire Wetlands Bureau (Dredge & Fill Permit), New Hampshire Fish & Game, New Hampshire Department of Historic Resources (Section 106 has to be complied with), and those who own properties within the floodplain (BAE, Millyard Technology Park, etc.). He stated the intent to speak with all property owners within the floodplain who would benefit or might be potentially impacted. Chairman Gallagher questioned the cost of the project. Mr. Lavigne stated the total project cost to be roughly one million dollars. Commissioner Gallagher questioned whether the enhancement would result in the hydro plant being able to generate additional power. Mr. Lavigne responded, as they are not raising head they would not be providing an advantage on the power equation. He noted the existing dam has a 1’ board on the top for the first 40’ from the fish ladder, which is intended to keep water from peeling over that section and creating a rush of water that would compete with the plume of water intended to attract the fish to the fish ladder. When asked what benefits would be gained by the City, Mr. Lavigne stated the number one benefit to the City is flood control. He stated the project would enhance the asset; makes the dam stable for current and future dam safety conditions. Should the City decide to lease it out, it would be leasing a better asset than exists today. When asked if additional revenue could be achieved, Mr. Lavigne stated it is likely kilowatt-hours could be increased at certain times of the year. At the end of the current contract, market rates will have to be paid (could go from $.12 to $.13/kw hour to $.05 or $.06/kw hour). He added the City can appreciate that power a lot differently than an independent power producer, i.e., the City could use it in conjunction with net metering that is taking place to offset what it pays for at the meter. Commissioner Gallagher questioned whether other towns/cities have considered assessing those properties favorably impacted at greater values. Mr. Lavigne responded he does not believe those attempts have been made as of yet, but suggested that should be looked at for a downtown area. When asked if a flood could damage the plant itself, Mr. Lavigne stated that is not likely for that particular power plant. He noted there have been cases where problems came about when the Merrimack River has risen, as water comes in through the back side of the turbine. In some cases the turbine is open to the floor and the floor can get wet. They lost a generator in one instance. There would never be a case where water coming down the river would flood out the power plant. He stated one of the things they are thinking of retrofitting before turning the plant back over to the City is a backflow gate that senses when the river reaches a certain height. When that occurs, the gate would drop in place and isolate the power production and stop power to keep the water from rising high enough to get back in. Commissioner Gillespie questioned who has funded the study to date. Mr. Lavigne responded it has been a private drive. They were initially retained by the Stabile group to look at what could be done with their project (Cotton Mill), and in doing so uncovered this much larger impact project. He added Stabile has funded getting the study to the point of bringing it to the City and to get a number of the stakeholders to be partners in this project. He stated the desire to develop a collaborative public/private venture to undertake this project. He Nashua Conservation Commission Page 9 of 17 02/07/12 noted the City, if they choose to be part of this project, has the ability to seek grant funding through FEMA for flood mitigation, which a private entity cannot do. Alderman Vitale noted the canal does not have any flow into the river, and questioned whether there would be impact if that situation changed. Mr. Lavigne noted the discharge from the canal is well upstream of this project. If there were an increase an adjustment could be made very easily. Alderman Moriarty questioned what occurs downstream when the heights are adjusted for flooding. Mr. Lavigne noted, with run of river, there is no storage of water. When the gates are dropped they are dropped incrementally. When it is dropped a foot they don’t raise that water level enough that it has an affect (inches of rise). They don’t have conditions of inundating the basement. He commented, with model simulations you are able to run different scenarios to see what would occur. Alderman Moriarty commented in the Midwest, Kansas and Missouri were flooding because further north they were running their water off their dams to prevent themselves from flooding. Mr. Lavigne remarked they are discharging water that is in storage to release down, and Jackson Falls does not have storage, it is passing flow through. This is not that same type of flood control. Their intent is to keep the flow moving across in wedges so that when it reaches the downstream area, which is wider, there are no rises in water levels. Ms. St. John questioned a realistic timeframe for construction. Mr. Lavigne responded the earliest this could be done, assuming all permitting goes through this year, would be the fall of 2013. Ms. St. John asked about the flood map amendment process should the dam improvements be made. Mr. Lavigne responded if FEMA believed flood maps needed to be amended, pre-approval would be in place, and once the project were completed an as built survey would have to be performed and provided to FEMA. FEMA would then begin the process of modifying the maps. That revision would likely take an additional 6 months. Mr. Lavigne concluded and was thanked for his presentation. Tara Heights Apartment - Phase I, located off Research Drive within the Nashua Technology Park (NTP), Sheet A/Lot 798 with 21.396 acres+/- to be subdivided off for this phase of the project. Project will contain 180 residential units in five garden style buildings with 169 parking spaces and associated site improvement. Project will create 6.05 acres of impervious land or 28% of project site. Impacts proposed to critical wetlands, 5,696 sq. ft. permanent wetland impacts including 125 linear feet of wetland fill to an intermittent stream for roadway and utility crossings and 31,174 sq. ft. of permanent buffer impacts. Mr. Petropulos provided an overview of the project. He referred to a conceptual plan shown to the Commission when the applicant was before it in 2011. He stated the Nashua Technology Park is comprised of 3 large buildings totaling about 750,000 sq. ft. The lower part of the site is developed for buildings and parking. Over the past two years the vision of how the property could be developed has been drafted. The conceptual plan shows Tara Boulevard (public way), leading to Innovative Way and Research Drive. What has been represented to the City and the neighbors, is a plan that includes a mixed use project; a combination of small retail spaces and offices in the front, essentially to support the current and future development of the park, pads, which are intended to be commercial development pads, and a 35 acre track of land that has been successfully rezoned for multi-family housing. The concept is to live, work, and play nearby. In the crosshatch areas, 300’ buffers were set aside along the residential properties to the west. The application to the Commission is for Phase I of Tara Heights, the apartment complex. He noted the Commission viewed the crossings in the stormwater area during the site walk. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 10 of 17 02/07/12 He stated the reason Phase II is not being proposed at this time is due to drainage dividing the property (Phase II will need to be sewered to the east) and the intent for Innovative Way be brought to the north where it will be connected through the roadways through Tara Heights (creating a loop). Mr. Petropulos spoke of wetland impacts of Phase I. In extending Research Drive, there will be a wetland crossing (headwall on both sides, riprap, culverted pipe). There is a second crossing sized to handle a future peak stormwater event (30” and 36” culvert). There will be minor buffer impacts due to grading (back areas to the building mowed and seeded). He remarked in the existing stormwater area the wooded wetland will remain as is, but with a new outlet plate to better control stormwater runoff (the area will be inundated a little more frequently than what currently occurs). He stated the benefit of doing that is they are going to re-pipe the parking lot and get it over into a pretreatment area prior to going into the wetland area. There is about 8,000 sq. ft. of impact, 5,600 to get around the crossings, temporary impact of about 20,000 sq. ft., and buffer impact of about 31,000 sq. ft. Mr. Petropulos noted receipt of DES reports after the application’s submission, and stated he would make those corrections. He noted there were also minor corrections that would be made (informational). Commissioner Gallagher remarked, at present, stormwater is traveling through two pipes, and the proposal is to eliminate the one on the east side. Mr. Petropulos responded the parking lot has a 30” culvert and connected into it are a number of drains from the parking. There is a drain that is running directly in (smaller system). They have identified a means of capturing the water and providing pretreatment, which eliminates the need for the outlet. Alderman Vitale questioned whether the drains off the parking lot would be redone. Mr. Petropulos responded just at the lower end (will be reconnected, rebuilt, and brought into the plunge pool). Alderman Vitale requested consideration be given to improved plowing practices. Mr. Cane stated the problem is the size of the parking lot and the lack of area to store snow. He suggested they could push the snow more toward where the new sedimentation basin will be placed to allow for some pretreatment. Alderman Vitale questioned mitigation. Mr. Petropulos stated the applicant is willing to discuss mitigation. Mr. Cane remarked, as part of re-zonings that have occurred on the property, a 300’ buffer has been dedicated along all abutting properties (approximately 60 acres of land). He stated the applicant would be before the Commission a number of times (with each phase of the project) and his preference would be to determine a more meaningful/significant contribution for mitigation closer to the conclusion of the development of the parcel when the totality of the property has been considered and the topography understood, i.e., could come across a large wetland further along on the property, which would present itself as an ideal area to provide the largest amount of protection. Alderman Vitale noted there could be upwards of 7 other pads (phases) coming before the Commission and that it could be in the area of 20-30 years before development of the parcel is complete. She remarked his proposal would result in benefits of mitigation might not being realized for 20-30 years. She questioned whether there was a projection on the likelihood of identifying additional wetland impacts further into the property. Mr. Cane responded the property consists of 400 acres of land of which 260 acres are developable. Sixty acres has been dedicated to buffer, leaving 200 acres for development. He stated the topography of the site is hilly and he is confident they will come across intermittent streams. He believes there will be impacts. He stated his belief, in this case, they have pretty much mitigated in as far as they have designed around them. However, there are a few intermittent streams that have to be crossed (road crossings). He stated they expect as they do additional pad sites they will incur the same types of impacts. Alderman Vitale questioned whether the property was in current use. Mr. Cane stated it has never been current use. Mr. Petropulos stated there is about 5,600 sq. ft. of real wetland impact. With regard to determining the form of mitigation at a later date and when the benefits would be derived, he noted, during the course of the 20-30 Nashua Conservation Commission Page 11 of 17 02/07/12 years the undeveloped area would remain natural wooded. He stated future impacts are not known, although they do know Phase II requires a road, and they suspect in calendar year 2012 they will have a better understanding of the impacts. Commissioner Gillespie questioned whether putting more water into the prime wetland would result in raising the water levels at times, and if so, would it affect the trees. Mr. Petropulos stated water levels would be raised; however they do not believe there will be an affect on the trees. He explained there is a large 36” pipe in there and they are going to put a plate on it and have a 3” opening that would provide delay time. Adjacent to it they are building a new outlet structure slightly higher with a bigger pipe so as it builds up it gives the water residence, which is what the alteration of terrain people are really looking for. He explained further what they are looking for is residence time in the stormwater to let suspended solids filter out. Peak storms kick into the other pipe and having the smaller pipe will drain that over time. There will be an inundation, but it will drain right back down to its wooded floor. Mr. Cane suggested it could mean, in a peak storm, there could be water standing a foot higher for another day or two before it drains out. He reiterated it is a wooded detention pond rather than an open grass area. There are a few streams that run through it, and during a peak storm they overflow. Commissioner Gillespie questioned whether there was collection of roof drainage from the apartments. Mr. Petropulos stated they are trying to promote recharge. He noted they have glacial till soils and rock anywhere from 3-10’. Because some of the buildings are in fill they have considered burying a 36” pipe behind each building to get the roof gutters to drain into it to facilitate recharge. Commissioner Harvey noted the application speaks to 5 buildings and the Dredge & Fill to 7. Mr. Petropulos responded there are 5 buildings proposed. The notation of 7 was in error. Commissioner Gillespie noted the application states one of the reasons behind the residential unit is an attempt to provide housing for those employed at the facilities onsite, and questioned whether that kind of screening could occur. Mr. Cane stated they could not legally screen in that manner. He remarked most of those residing on the property would likely not be working on site, but he believes there would be a number of residents that do (expects 10-15%). He reiterated they are attempting to create an environment to improve the ability of businesses to attract young engineers, etc. through the amenities that will be included in the project, i.e., trail system, recreation, etc. Chairman MacLaughlin commented if the Commission is unable to identify an acceptable form of mitigation onsite at this time for this particular phase, there are two options; mitigation for a larger portion of the overall project determined at a later date and offsite mitigation. He questioned the monetary value of the mitigation for this phase of the project. Mr. Cane stated he was unsure what a monetary value would be for 6,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. of impact. He reiterated they might uncover an area for mitigation on site further into the project. Mr. Petropulos spoke of a previous project where onsite mitigation was not an option, resulting in a monetary contribution towards a vernal pool study. Alderman Moriarty questioned whether the gentlemen had any experience where mitigation was in the form of improvements to existing land. Mr. Cane stated he has had no such experiences and commented you have to be the owner of the land to traverse the property. Alderman Moriarty questioned whether City owned property could be improved as a means of mitigation. Mr. Cane spoke to concerns relative to liability issues that could arise by having contractors work on property owned by another entity. He stated he would rather make a monetary contribution towards a project that could be completed by another. Commissioner Gallagher remarked, based on the work proposed in this phase he does not believe there would be anything lost by postponing a decision on mitigation until the next phase is before the Commission when discussions could combine the level of impact for both phases and a larger area of mitigation could be determined. Alderman Vitale questioned whether Phase II would represent the second portion of the residential aspect of the project, and was informed that would be the case. She questioned the timeframe in which an application might be prepared for this second phase of the residential project. Mr. Cane responded in Nashua Conservation Commission Page 12 of 17 02/07/12 order to do the next phase a roadway has to be constructed. He stated knowledge of wetlands in the area and a belief the apartments would be in planning perhaps late this year or worst case, next year. It is hoped the first phase of construction would begin this year. He believes it would be a 12-month construction project. Assuming they lease out, the desire would be to roll right into the next phase. He stated a willingness to put something in writing detailing the need for future mitigation for impacts created by this phase of the project. Alderman Vitale suggested the Commission could agree to postpone identification of mitigation until a point specific in the future (perhaps 5 years), that they compile a list of projects that require improvement(s), and make the applicant aware, should a viable mitigation project present itself in the interim, they would approach the applicant with such a mitigation solution. Chairman MacLaughlin remarked there exists a small list of potential projects; however, they do not have a finite cost attached to them, and they are not necessarily located within proximity to the project. He stated this project is very unique, has been widely supported, and may require flexibility on the part of the Commission with regard to mitigation. Mr. Cane stated he and others associated with the project would work with the Commission and the City with whatever needs to be done. He believes there will be plenty of opportunities for a better alternative than simply trying to identify a small project at this time. Chairman MacLaughlin stated a contribution to the ARM Fund as the least desirable alternative and a hope that can be avoided. Ms. St. John informed the Commission she, Mr. Houston and Ms. Hersh have discussed the application and the need for mitigation. She was asked to contact Financial Services to inquire how a monetary contribution would be handled, i.e., would it be put in the Conservation Fund or another type of fund. The response was the question should be posed of Corporation Counsel to determine whether a mechanism exists to accept a monetary contribution. Commissioner Gallagher was unsure a monetary contribution could be made to the Conservation Fund and noted RSA states the form of funding to be land use change tax. Ms. St. John noted there are provisions that speak to donations, which require clarification. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER THAT THE COMMISSION REQUEST MS. ST. JOHN MEET WITH CORPORATION COUNSEL TO DETERMINE THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE FINANCIAL MITIGATION FOR THIS AND FUTURE PROJECTS AND TO DETERMINE, IF FEASIBLE, WHETHER FUNDS COULD BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONSERVATION FUND OR IF IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CREATE A SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOTION CARRIED Alderman Moriarty questioned whether it was possible to determine what the equivalent ARM Fund contribution would be for this level of impact. Commissioner Gallagher stated there exists a formula that could be utilized. Commissioner Harvey questioned whether there was intent to construct a playground, and was informed there was not. Mr. Cane stated there would be a pool in the clubhouse, a computer room, and other amenities such as trails intended to be attractive to young professionals. He spoke of a former stump dump area that would be temporarily reconfigured as a ballfield for use by employees of the park until the area is developed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER TO TABLE UNTIL THE COMMISSION’S MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 IN ORDER FOR RESEARCH TO BE CONDUCTED, WHICH WILL ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE A FINAL OUTCOME PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT’S APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRUNDAGE MOTION CARRIED Nashua Conservation Commission Page 13 of 17 02/07/12 UPDATES/OTHER BUSINESS • GPS Trails Terrell Homestead Conservation Area (THCA) Ms. St. John informed the Commission Ms. O’Connor’s students experienced some technical difficulties with the GPS unit during the trail mapping project. Those issues are being worked out, and once received; the resulting maps will be shared with the Commission. • THCA Sign; Planning the Spring Event The two signs are complete and ready for pickup. Nick Caggiano, Superintendent of Parks & Recreation, will house the signs until the official unveiling ceremony takes place. Chairman MacLaughlin stated a desire to conduct an unveiling ceremony, which would include those individuals who participated at the dedication ceremony that took place last June. It was suggested the students who took part in the project of identifying GPS coordinates for the trails be invited to attend as well. Chairman MacLaughlin offered to take on the responsibility of coordinating the event. A brief discussion ensued regarding an appropriate timeframe for such an event. The general consensus of the Commission was for the event to occur in late April (preferably a Saturday). • LCHIP Annual Monitoring Report Ms. St. John informed the Commission the report was submitted to DES and LCHIP. • LCHIP; Damaged Sign Replacement Ms. St. John has made initial inquiries in an attempt to determine who the original purchaser of the sign was and who would be financially responsible for replacement costs. She will provide an update when available. • Legislation Update Chairman MacLaughlin suggested the item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting given Commissioner Trivilino was not in attendance. • Airport; Vegetative Clearing Ms. St. John informed the Commission concerns have come to her attention regarding the extent of clearing that has occurred. She remarked what the Commission had been told was the clearing that was done was to ensure they met FAA requirements. Commissioner Gillespie stated they more than met the requirements; down to ground level in most cases. He stated his shock to see the clear cut behind the PepBoys facility on Amherst Street, and his belief that level of clearing was not what was understood to be necessary. Ms. St. John noted site walk notes captured what was conveyed to the Commission; it would be selective clearing that varied depending upon angle of approach of aircraft and that some larger trees would have to be removed to avoid trimming on a yearly basis. Chairman MacLaughlin questioned whether it was the opinion of Commissioner Gillespie the action warrants a communication from the City. Commissioner Gillespie remarked what is done is done and stated he believes they have completed their work. However the applicant could be put on notice the Commission does not approve of what has taken place. Nashua Conservation Commission Page 14 of 17 02/07/12 Alderman Vitale suggested a review of the application be conducted to determine whether what took place was in excess of what was represented. She spoke of the possibility the applicant may have been faced with entering the property with machinery to be able to remove the required trees, which could have resulted in the removal of lower vegetation. She noted seeding has taken place. She spoke of property owners being questioned whether they would like additional tree clearing to occur while work was being done in particular areas. Commissioner Gallagher referred to the City owned easement granted by the Railroad and his recollection that area was not being clear cut, but that pretty much everything had to be removed to open up under growth, which would grow resulting in a similar activity taking place in the future. However, it was not his understanding everything would be eliminated. Behind BBC on the Roman Catholic’s easement, they pretty much clear-cut the area, which was not what the Commission was told would occur. He questioned whether contractors are being notified of and held accountable to stipulations. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER TO REQUEST STAFF COMPOSE A LETTER NOTIFYING THE NASHUA AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DISPLEASURE WITH THE LEVEL OF TREE CLEARING THAT HAS OCCURRED AND THAT THE LETTER CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT WAS PRESENTED AND LATER DISCUSSED DURING THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 SITE WALK AND WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE ON THE QUESTION Commissioner Overby stated her support of such a letter. She questioned whether there have been past incidents where breach of agreement has occurred, and if so, what action resulted. Chairman MacLaughlin cited many examples of breach of agreement. Ms. St. John remarked the airport application was her first experience working with the Nashua Airport and she doesn’t have the historical perspective to comment on other past issues regarding the airport activities. Alderman Vitale stated the applicant is of the belief work that has been performed is within the scope of approvals. MOTION CARRIED • Wetland Application Revisions Ms. St. John informed the commission she continues to work on the revisions. • Other Ms. St. John informed the Commission two residents contacted her regarding tree cutting that occurred within the wetlands on a property located at 166 Searles Road (20’ setback). The residents questioned what measures could be taken to prevent such activity and to protect the wetland resources. Both parties noted they are aware Nashua has wetland protection provisions and wanted to know what is going to be done about this issue. Trees were cut down up to the area of the stream and firewood is now being stacked in the area. When asked whether the trees were cut as a result of damage caused by the October storm, Ms. St. John stated she visited the site, but by then the trees were removed; therefore, she was unable to determine if they removed as a result of damage incurred during the October storm event or for other reasons. Chairman MacLaughlin stated an interest in inviting the property owner to provide the Commission with information as to why it was necessary to remove trees. Alderman Vitale questioned rules relating to property owners performing any work in the area of intermittent streams. Commissioner Gillespie noted there is a 20’ buffer area that is protected. Ms. St. John cited provisions in city ordinances regarding unauthorized cutting of trees in wetlands. Alderman Vitale spoke of a property in Ward 1 where a property owner performed work up to the stream and dumping occurred in the stream. Her recollection was that a site walk was performed and the property owner Nashua Conservation Commission Page 15 of 17 02/07/12 was required to purchase and install buffer markers. She could not recollect whether or not the property owner was fined. Ms. St. John stated she would look into prior instances and how they were addressed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO INVITE THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 166 SEARLES ROAD TO AN UPCOMING COMMISSION MEETING TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT OCCURRED WITH THE TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED Ms. St. John informed the Commission an individual visited City Hall with a concern related to a property located at 24 Harris Road. It appears a patio area has been constructed, and the concern is its proximity to the brook. She questioned whether the Commission wished for her to contact the property owner. Alderman Vitale questioned whether the patio is located within the setback. Ms. St. John stated she would have to research that further. She remarked the concern is with impervious pavement. Commissioner Gillespie noted the City buffer is 75’ and the State buffer is 100’. Alderman Vitale commented, in the past, the Commission has required property owners, in such instances, to remove structures outside of the buffer area. The only other alternative is to go through the Zoning Board of Adjustment process to obtain an after-the-fact permit. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER THAT SHOULD IT BE DETERMINED A BUFFER ENCROACHMENT HAS OCCURRED, STAFF FORWARD A LETTER TO THE HOMEOWNER OF 24 HARRIS ROAD INVITING HIM/HER TO A FUTURE MEETING FOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOTION CARRIED Ms. St. John informed the Commission she received a phone call from a resident on Stonebridge regarding a damaged tree within the wetland creating a safety concern for children in the area. She received a subsequent call from the Property Manager of the complex. She informed the Property Manager, as there was an eminent safety threat, the one tree could be removed, they should contact the State as permitting may be required, and should there be a desire to remove additional trees, the need exists to go through the application process with the City. Chairman MacLaughlin questioned whether it was Ms. St. John’s understanding her suggestion was well received. Ms. St. John stated it was and noted the Property Manager was almost apologetic to the fact the renter who raised the issue should have gone through the property management company prior to contacting the City. Alderman Vitale suggested the Commission consider providing written notification to the property owner stating the Commission’s willingness to approve the cutting of this one tree within the wetland specifically citing safety concerns. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR MILLSTONE INFORMING THEM THE TREE IN QUESTION COULD BE REMOVED, STATING THE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE FORMAL APPLICATION PROCESS SHOULD THEY DESIRE TO REMOVE ADDITIONAL TREES, AND THAT A COPY OF THE MEETING MINUTES AS WELL AS AN APPLICATION BE INCLUDED WITH THE LETTER MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OVERBY MOTION CARRIED Ms. St. John informed the Commission an application for invasive harvesting in the Nashua River would appear on its next agenda. Commissioner Gallagher questioned whether the Commission had received a request for a financial contribution. Commissioner Gillespie stated that would not be the case this year. Ms. St. John noted the applicant has applied for grant funding. Commissioner Gillespie commented the application would be a swap for the canal, i.e., in kind tradeoff of work to be performed. He further explained there would Nashua Conservation Commission Page 16 of 17 02/07/12 be herbicide applied to the canal to address some of the invasives. A formal application will be presented to the Commission at its next meeting. TABLED From: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Re: Alteration of Terrain #WPS-7838B Southline Woods, Nashua, Tax Map/Lot D/7 • Tabled 12-20-11 Permit holder name change from Groton Road Development, LLC to CMI Leasing Corp., George Hall, Manager. Permit Expiration Date June 27, 2014. Original permit issued June 27, 200. PUBLIC INPUT - None BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS From: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Wetland Bureau Re: Shoreland Impact Permit 2012-00021 Jenson’s Inc., 18 Marina Drive, Tax Map D, Lot 139/86 Permit Description; Impact 2,008 sq. ft. in order to replace existing structure with a larger structure. Approval date January 10, 2012/Expiration Date January 10, 2017. Approved by NHDES With Conditions. Building Permit Application Received January 27, 2012 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER ON THE QUESTION Commissioner Gillespie questioned the nature of the existing structure. Ms. St. John stated a manufactured home on the property was demolished and the desire is to replace it with a new one. She noted the application would result in shoreland impact not wetland impact. She explained a building permit application was submitted for the City’s review. She noted this unit is located in the Jensen’s Manufactured Home Park, which has been reviewed by the Commission in the past. MOTION CARRIED From: Lower Merrimack River Local Advisory Committee (LMRLAC) Re: 70 Farmington Road/Shoreland Permit 32012-00038 Ms. St. John stated she received an inquiry from LMRLAC questioning whether she was aware of this permit. She has received a letter, via e-mail, from NH DES stating they are in receipt of an application from the property owner and require additional information. She commented the applicant went before the Zoning Board of Adjustment in November of 2011 for variances related to setbacks. There is currently no application on file. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER MOTION CARRIED Nashua Conservation Commission Page 17 of 17 02/07/12 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Ms. St. John noted the items listed were informational in nature. • Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; Schedule of Field Trips and Events; February – April, 2012 Additional information can be found on the website; www.forestsociety.org • RSA, Chapter 36-A Conservation Commissions • City General Code; Conservation Commission PROJECT UPDATES BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Gallagher spoke to Ordinance 11-53, a copy of which was provided in advance of the meeting, and questioned whether it was necessary for him to continue to provide project updates on the Cotton Mill project as it has been deemed to be within the “Shoreland Exemption” area. He noted although the ordinance indicates a project within this area would be exempt, the application process before the Conservation Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment would still need to be undertaken. He questioned whether he should continue to track project progress. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER TO ADJOURN MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOTION CARRIED The Conservation Commission meeting of February 7, 2012 was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Attest: Committee Clerk Richard Gillespie