Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough Conservation Commission sends comments on three development proposals citing wetlands, drainage and floodplain risks
Summary
The commission approved submission of comment letters on three planning applications — 57 School St., Harvey Way and Henniker St. — flagging wetlands, impervious-surface and stormwater concerns and authorizing the chair to attend hearings to elaborate. The motion passed 6-0.
Vice Chair James McDonough and the Hillsborough Conservation Commission on Sept. 10 approved submitting formal comments on three land-use proposals after raising concerns about wetlands, stormwater management and floodplain risks.
Member Jim Riddle moved to approve the three comment sheets (identified in meeting records as M24-L21, M110-L152 and M12-L113) and to authorize the chair or his designee to attend public hearings to present and expand on the Commission’s concerns; Jim Narloch seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
The three applications reviewed included a subdivision application for 57 School St. (M24-L21), a subdivision/site-plan filing for Harvey Way (M110-L152) and a site-plan amendment for Henniker St. (M12-L113). The Commission recorded consensus of no comment on 57 School St.; for Harvey Way the Commission explicitly cited concerns about wetlands on proposed Lot 152-4, the total amount of impervious surface proposed and how stormwater from the site would be managed and conveyed. Regarding the Henniker St. amendment, the Commission noted an absence of drainage plans and expressed concern because the lot is in a flood plain and the proposed use or disposal of toxic chemicals could contaminate ground and surface waters and travel into the river.
Recording Secretary John P. Segedy recused himself from the Henniker St. discussion; the record notes he later resumed his duties. The motion authorizing submittal of the comment letters also directed that the Chair or a designated representative may appear at hearings to elaborate on the concerns and to comment on other conservation issues that arise during those hearings.
The items are now in the town planning process; the Commission’s comments will be part of the public record at upcoming planning hearings. No formal approvals of development were made at the Commission meeting.
Other administrative correspondence reviewed at the same time included the town’s monthly expense report, an NHPDIP (New Hampshire Public Deposit Investment Pool) account balance reported at $235,825.80, and a New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) application for renewal of a groundwater management permit for 271 Henniker St.
