Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stephens Landscape Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation panel tours Stephens Landscape site; flags stormwater and storage risks
Summary
At a July 10 site visit, the Moultonborough Conservation Commission reviewed a proposed redevelopment of Stephens Landscape at 62 Moultonborough Neck Road, welcomed planned stormwater improvements but raised concerns about unprotected bulk-material storage, unpermitted clearing and a need for third‑party review.
Get email alerts on the Stephens Landscape Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Moultonborough Conservation Commission conducted a site visit July 10 to review the proposed redevelopment of Stephens Landscape Company at 62 Moultonborough Neck Road. Mark Stephens and Aaron Thibeault of Northpoint Engineering led an approximately 1 hour 40 minute tour beginning at the existing 5,800‑square‑foot building and described planned stormwater measures including infiltration basins, bioretention systems, erosion controls and spill‑prevention features.
Commissioners acknowledged that the project’s designed controls should improve on-site stormwater management relative to current conditions but expressed several operational and construction‑phase concerns. The minutes report that the developer plans to relocate bulk material storage bins to the western edge of the property and to install fuel and equipment wash stations intended to prevent contamination of adjacent wetlands. Mark Stephens told the group that build‑out is expected to take about two years and that relocation of storage bins is the first priority.
However, commissioners flagged a cleared area roughly described in the minutes as 500 feet long and 80–180 feet wide where materials would be stored directly on gravel. The commission noted the risk that chemical leachates from mulch, loam and other landscape materials could percolate through the gravel and reach adjacent wetlands, and asked for further evaluation by the applicant’s engineer and a town‑retained reviewer. The minutes record that the applicant (Stephens) offered that providing covered, lined storage would be impractical and that runoff would be routed to an on‑site bioretention/infiltration basin (SWMB #4).
