Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tamworth conservation group seeks town OK to pursue two donated easements on Bunker Hill Road
Summary
The Tamworth Conservation Commission reported landowners Nelson O'Brien and Juna Veil are offering two conservation easements—one roughly 32–34 acres and one about 20 acres—near Jackman Pond and asked the select board whether to proceed with drafting easement documents; transaction costs would come from the town conservation fund.
The Tamworth Conservation Commission told the select board on Sept. 23 that landowners Nelson O'Brien and Juna Veil have offered to donate conservation easements on two adjacent parcels on Bunker Hill Road and asked the board whether it is likely to support moving forward with drafting and the paperwork.
A conservation commission member told the board the parcels sit near a bend in Bunker Hill Road and together form part of a north–south wildlife corridor that links larger conserved lands and feeds streams that run into Jackman Pond. One parcel includes a power-line right-of-way; the commission recommended including that corridor in the easement so the protections remain if the utility later abandons the right-of-way. The commission representative said the larger parcel would have a roughly 1.5-acre house-lot holdout, leaving “about 32 acres” in conservation; the other parcel is about 20 acres and contains substantial wetlands.
The conservation commission representative told the board, “Before we go any further, we always want to check in with the select board to see if this is something that seems likely to be supported going forward,” noting that while the easements would be donated, the town would likely incur several thousand dollars in transaction costs—survey work, recording fees and legal review—and that those costs are typically paid from the town conservation fund.
Board members asked several clarifying questions about location, buildable area and whether the parcels are enrolled in current-use taxation. The commission representative said both parcels are in current use, which limits any immediate tax impacts and likely keeps the tax change from being material to the landowners.
Select board members also asked about the commission’s criteria for accepting easements, noting the balance the town seeks between conserving wildlife corridors and preserving areas appropriate for future housing. The commission member said the land-review committee prepared a value assessment explaining how the parcels score against those criteria and offered to provide that assessment to the town administrator for distribution to the select board.
No formal town acceptance of the easements occurred at the meeting. Instead, the select board indicated general willingness to proceed with further negotiations and drafting, subject to review of the conservation commission’s assessment and any new information about costs or conflicts. The commission said it would proceed to prepare draft easement language and that the two easements would be drafted separately but with similar terms to simplify long-term monitoring.
The board and commission discussed recent local easement activity, noting the town recorded an easement on Clevelandville Road in the last year and other easements in the past decade. Several board members voiced the recurring community concern about balancing conservation with housing availability; commissioners acknowledged the tension and said the commission declines transactions that do not meet its conservation priorities.
The commission asked the select board to flag any concerns before the commission incurs survey or legal expenses; the commission said it will pause if the board signals the proposal is unlikely to receive support.
