"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
Alexander Hamilton

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Moultonboro Conservation Commission October 20th 2014

27 comments:

Private Funds Welcome said...

Per the draft minutes, this was about buying or conserving the LAU Reality Trrust land, 37 acres along Red Hill river, from Rt 25 to Lee Pond. This campain has been re-branded to be " The Lee Pond Preserve " and it will preserve the pristine views from a few houses on Lee Pond.
It is very important to the Con-Com, their first effort to actually do a deal, and prove they're really green. Private money can do all they wish here....save the river, save the bog, save the history, save the animals...bless them.
In fairness, it should be mentioned that the BOS reviewed this, and for several reasons " preserved " taxpayers money. Hope they stick to their guns...and preserve out wallets.

Bill Gassman said...

Let's be clear. The folks on Lee's pond keep their views if the land continues to be undeveloped, or if it is developed with conservation easements. That is a bonus, but not the reason the ConCom is expending the effort.

If you study satellite maps of the area, you should understand how important this area is for filtering out nutrients as water flows from Garland Pond into Lee's and on to Winnipesaukee. Some of this protective barrier has already been developed, which is surely not reducing the green algae that the satellite photos clearly show. The lake does not need the extra pounds of yearly phosphorus running into its headwaters.

It is also no stretch to see why wildlife take refuge here and use it as a path from Red Hill to Lee's Pond.

The ConCom did not ask the town to buy this land when reviewing it with the BOS, well aware that this has to be a public effort.

Please attend the walk through and/or the public meeting on Saturday November 8'th to learn more and have your questions and concerns answered. The announcement is linked to my name. If public interest is deemed sufficient, the Concom will shortly be looking for volunteers and starting a fund-raising campaign. This is important, but far from a done deal.

Anonymous said...

Sir, with 2,000 acres protected on Red Hill, and 3,000 acres protected on the flank of the Ossipee, how are you going to restrict the critters to your 37 acres? We do not see evidence of road kill thru there.....your graph charting road kill mentions one a month...this is not an epidemic.
We have the shoreline protection act, and all kinds of wetland setbacks and protection. Doesn't that do it for saving the marsh?
The allegation that this is buildable land needs to be questioned also. This is hilly and an extremely undesirable location for housing. There is so much available with views, and peace and quiet, why struggle to build here? One end on Rt 25.. Noisy.
You all certainly have wonderful goals, you have just picked the wrong piece of land. Start with a clean sheet of paper, and go after something you would like to have. Stop jumping on plots because they come to you.

ConCom Bill said...

To anonymous 8:29: While I don't agree with all you wrote, the points are worthy of deeper discussion. Hopefully these will come up at the Nov 8'th public meeting. The landscape architect will show how the land could be developed with 8-10 homes and a few businesses, yet still provide a buffer for protecting water quality. Perhaps that is the best solution, probably not.

The wetland setback and shoreline protection acts are great instruments, yet are not strongly enforced and frequently ignored. Water quality aside, development reduces wildlife free range, an issue that hopefully will help generate private funds to protect this area.

This plot was in a high-priority area before the commission became aware it was available. Going after plots that are not on the market won't work out well, especially with no funds in the land acquisition budget. The commission has to be opportunistic. The alternative, promoting easements or current use tax breaks are another approach, but not relevant here.

Anonymous said...

I hope people will be open minded about this and not just say no because no is the " in" word for the far right. This property is perfect for conservation. Why do some of you constantly berate and belittle those that sincerely care about our future? Once and is developed it is a done deal. Can't go back. This is exactly the type of property the town should be buying so that we can preserve it for generations to come and preserve who we are for the future.

Anonymous said...

I listen to the video and understood this land will be purchased through private funding. I'm not far right but feel if folks want to perserve this parcel, do it with privite money not taxpayer money. Please don't pull a bait and switch at Town Meeting.

Anonymous said...

I hate to be cynical at the ripe old age of 70+, but being open-minded in M'boro has frequently wound up with disastrous results. We are fed the "Trust us, this study will show what we need", and WHAM! another big hit to the taxpayer. Some issues, when voted down, keep rearing their heads. Sooooooo.....having had the experience of how it usually works around here, please excuse my skepticism that this will be different.

Right Sequence ? said...

Mr G, let's set aside the Lee Pond Preserve a minute, and ask the entire Con Com if they are happy with the agenda of the LWWA. Their intent at the Moultonboro Inlet Kickoff meeting was business as usual, proceed with a year long study of the whole area, costing about $ 110,000. Our area will be one of 13 they want to study.
We have a near point source that should be looked at ASAP....Shannon Brook...it washes the States Landing Beack, where our town hall wants permission to spend $ one point seven million for beach cleaning and amusements... With spending like that proposed, can we wait for another study on the Brook, which has 400 homes on 100 acres in its watershed? Agreed, this would be tackling the tough nut first...but the aroma will not go away until we face that issue. Is Con Com happy with the LWWA agenda? We will contribute $ 50,000 to this...does it work for us?

Anonymous said...

It was said there are no funds in the land acquision budget.....well grab some of the cash in your other budgets, and fund it. As I recall, the Conservation Commission has about $ 80,000 squirreled away. This is repurposed town taxpayers money, it comes from a generous present we gave Con Com, they get part of the back tax assessed penalty when land is removed from current use.. Move that around, what are you saving it for?

ConCom Bill said...

Regarding the LWWA managed study, it puts a scientific methodology behind what many already suspect is wrong. Failed septic systems, cleared land runoff, poor maintenance on private dirt roads, weekend boat traffic, illegal use of fertilizer, geese and other natural causes are all part of the problem. What is not known is; how much is each source contributes and what will be the impact (if any) of each solution. For example, if the ConCom recommended an unpopular solution such as mandatory septic pumping every five years within 250 feet of the shoreline, a community septic for densely built communities, or more building restrictions, there had better be a scientific study to back them up. Many agree that the lake is our economic engine, so it should make sense to hire experts that helps us maintain it.

The issue of dredging leaves from states landing came up at the MBI study kickoff meeting. Will pulling the leaves improve lake quality, or just the beach? Without the scientific models, nobody knows. Shannon Brook is one of the sources that degrades water quality, but it the ongoing data collection indicates that Greens Basin, the Red Hill River and Middle Brook are also strong contributors. How much? Wait for the study.

When it comes to the ConCom budget, I don't know how big the current use funded account is, but would be surprised if it is near 80K as anonymous:8:25 recalls. The ConCom is using that account to pay for the Lee's Pond Funding Project, like for a deed review, appraisal, landscape architect and lunch at the upcoming November 8'th public meeting. It may spend 10K, plus/minus on this project. If there is indeed 80K in the account, that allows for seven more projects, rather than spending it all on Lee's Pond Preserve.

The ComCom's approach to land protection is to leverage its funds. It decided several years ago that acquiring conservation land for the town is not practical, even though it is not completely out of the question. Instead, the approach is to help others with legal work required to put high-priority land into current use, conservation easement or land trust.

Last year, the ConCom published its identification of high-priority land, and a scoring process to help decide when to get involved. When a land conservation opportunity comes up, it can be scored for relevance. The Lee's Pond Preserve scored high. The process seems to work.

For those that don't trust local government: I understand your skepticism, however my involvement with several town organizations shows me that in THIS town, people that get involved have a significant (not absolute) say in what happens. While far from perfect, some trust is warranted.

Eric Taussig said...

It seems that this property cries for a re-zoning by Rte 25. The road kill in this area is an issue. If you have one or two deer or moose collisions a month that is an epidemic. It doesn't say that more animals don't cross. All it says is that either the animals don't get hit because they are smart enough, motorists brake quickly enough or that crossings occur mostly at night when there is little or no traffic. If we had serious accidents at this location there would be a hue an cry for corrective action.

While it is fine to preserve land with other peoples' money, the groups such as Lakes Region Conservation Trust, or other conservation groups depend on peoples' genoerosity and can't be expected to do it all. Other Towns use tax money to preserve land for a variety of good reasons, just look at Meredith and what they did for Page Pond.

I for one would much rather use my tax money for preserving this property than spending it on sidewalks in the village or expanding the very expensive walkway on the Neck Road.

Conservation of lands pays big dividends in less pollution, flooding and water quality degradation. The minimal loss of tax revenue is eclipsed by the tangible benefits.

Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

Could be a nice walk. Will probably go after breakfast At Village Kitchen!

Copy and paste this link onto address window at the top of your browser(town GIS/TAX website);in "Enter text here-" enter: 076004;click on "Find Parcel ID"; click on "Parcel ID.

http://www.caigisonline.com/moultonboroughnh/

It appears from the GIS/tax map that the Town is an abutter;see,076005,076006; and also shows up on town-owned properties on page 59of the MoBo 2013 Annual Report.

However, 076007 and 065009 show as owners, The Nature Conservancy.

Maybe they would be interested in buying the Town properties,076005,076006, as well as, 076004?!

Spend Yours, NOT Ours. said...

Mr T, many dead ends in your letter. What would you rezone that to? Deer Crossing ? One dead skunk or beaver a month is NOT an. Epidemic. Our heroin death toll, scheduled to hit 100 this year....that is an epidemic.
Meredith Page Pond had a massive public fundraising, and conserved land to block a proposed use. This land has NO. Proposed practical use. It will conserve its self.
The RedHill River flows by the base of our old town landfill, still being watched, then flows thru Garland Pond, with very few lakefront homes, then under rt 25 where it picks up road salt, then down to the PROTECTED bog/wetland, that filters out some of the evils. Nothing will improve this system, unless you stop using salt on Rt 25. Keep our town landscape engineer away...he likes duplex and tri housing, and that land will sleep peacefully for ever...walk it, you will see.

For Rational Discussion said...

Spend Yours not Ours misses the point. No one said that private contributions shouldn't be solicited to aid in purchasing and conserving the property, but big purchases can't always be done privately.

The Town last year bought the Taylor property purportedly to keep out "ill advised or improper development". It also bought the Lions Club property and I heard no begging for private contributions as purchase of these properties was "in the public interest".

, I agree with the writer who said that collisions with deer and moose are a major issue. There is a reason for the state to post all those moose warning signs as there are many fatal collisions.

Finally, to compare heroin deaths with large animal collisions is nonsensical. Drug issues are dealt with or not dealt with differently and don't belong in a land acquisition debate.

Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

Click on the town website for town owned property.

enter:Moultonborough town ...in the "search for" box, and click "Find Owner".

Red Pin bonanza ...

http://www.caigisonline.com/moultonboroughnh/

We can Add...Can They ? said...

Joe, town owned property up 5 this year, to 65 parcels.
Value down by $ a million dollars....down to $ 14 million....
Had to do the math myself, the crafty town hall no longer includes the totals in the town annual report. Moult Math...

OPEN Space. said...

Posted at 8:08. The Taylor Property. Purchased to keep out ill advised or inapproiate development. That battle is just beginning. Most voters wanted that for open space, a town green. Our Town Administrator has told several groups that it is to be preserved for commercial development. We need to throw a big wrench in his dream. Who is he to make that decision ?

V V Better Hurry.. said...

OPEN Space......the T A should atleast wait till the village Vision Committee finishes it's report, before he goes and does what he wants.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

To clarify- NO decision has been made for the Taylor property. The TA can express his opinions one of which is the possible use of part of the property for development, but it is just a hypothetical and it came up as part of the site study committee for the proposed gym. The Village Vision committee still has to weigh in and their opinions on this area of the village will carry the most weight in my own opinion. Please keep an open mind.

Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...


2014 Squam Watershed Report

http://www.squamlakes.org/news/2014-squam-watershed-report

Anonymous said...

How much money do these cats want from us anyway?

Pick Your Price.. said...

Pay what you want...the local realtor said he could ge in the high $ 800,000 for it. Offered to Con Com for $ 259,000. Now talking $ 229,000. Assessed $ 149,000

Anonymous said...

Hasn't this been in the market for years with no takers? Here we go again.
Let it sit. Nobody wants to develop it anyway. We are not here to bail out homeowners unable to sell their property. Although the TA continues to push that in us.

Anonymous said...

I thought that the Town assessed property at 100% of true value so why should the Town pay more than the assessed value??

When I tried to sell my property at the assessed value, I did not receive even 1 offer after the sight seers left.

Due diligence requires some proper appraisals before we try to but this property. The road kill won't tell us how much to pay.

Jim Grayson said...

Some BEAUTIFUL and FAMOUS folks in town are connected to this property. Sort of like Lion's Club and sort of like Taylor Property. And more BEAUTIFUL and FAMOUS folks in town live on Lees Pond. We have spent good money to clean up the milfoil there. Now lets buy this nice buffer to their peaceful setting.
The Town should run away from this one just as everyone else seems to have done and why it has been on the market so long. But, oops, that means we will purchase it. Forgot where I lived for a moment.

Please Fully Explain said...

I for one would like to know who Mr. Grayson is referring to? If we are preserving land for view purposes, the taxpayers should be told who is benefitting.

That is not to say that even if Mr. Grayson's "BEAUTIFUL" and "FAMOUS" are benefitting, that disqualifies this property from preservation.

Anonymous said...

"November 3, 2014 at 5:24 PM" - Where can we find the information that you suggested: most voters want this property to be open space.