Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation commission flags stormwater, buffer risks from Amherst paving proposal
Summary
Halas Conservation Commission members warned that a proposal by Amherst Paving Company could route stormwater and runoff into Hollis wetlands, noting potential buffer encroachment, lighting and roof runoff issues; the applicant was absent and town staff said jurisdictional questions remain.
Joe, chair of the Halas Conservation Commission, opened the meeting on April 15 by noting that the applicant for Golden Valley Way Holdings was not present and that commissioners should expect to hear from planning staff when the proposal reaches this board.
At a planning-board update, Bill Mosley, the commission’s planning-board liaison, said the Amherst Paving Company proposal sits on the Amherst–Hollis border and that roughly 2.3 acres of the parcel lie in Hollis. Mosley said the applicant’s current site plan included a stormwater retention pond near Hollis property, lighting and roof runoff features that ‘‘come into Hollis’’ and a shown aggregate or waste pile that appears close to or within the town’s wetland buffer. He urged commissioners to question any elements that could affect Hollis wetlands when the applicant appears.
Commissioners pressed for details about ownership and plan specifics. One member noted the parcel may have been part of Camposy holdings; Mosley said he did not have the full plans at the meeting and that the proposal had been presented conceptually in Amherst. Planning staff later expanded on jurisdictional limits: Kevin, who said he has the application materials, told the commission that while most improvements lie in Amherst, the receiving stormwater and wetland buffers would affect Hollis and that conservation-jurisdictional review in Hollis will focus primarily on wetland buffers, aquifer protection overlays and floodplain implications.
Kevin said the applicant has submitted shoreland and state alteration-of-terrain permit applications and that the project is ‘‘a very confusing application’’ because the improvements are mostly in Amherst while the hydrology and buffers affect Hollis. He advised commissioners that the town can apply its buffer regulations only within Hollis and that the commission should expect to see multiple follow-up filings and meetings. He also said he would be available to walk commissioners through the application when the applicant appears.
Commissioners discussed coordination with Amherst and state agencies. One member suggested reaching out to Amherst’s conservation commission and notifying Fish and Game about potential impacts to brook trout habitat in the stream forming the town boundary; Kevin said Fish and Game typically becomes involved through state permitting but agreed that inviting them to listen would be reasonable.
The meeting produced no formal action on the Golden Valley Way proposal because the applicant did not present. Mosley and Kevin urged commissioners to prepare questions and to coordinate with Amherst planners before the Hollis hearing so the commission can respond promptly when the application is formally submitted.
The commission expects the applicant to appear at a future meeting; staff said they will circulate the full plans and help members understand the division of jurisdiction between Amherst and Hollis.
