MINUTES
HORSE
HILL NATURE PRESERVE (HHNP)
04/17/06
DRAFT
Members Present:
Tim Tenhave, Chair HHNP Ad Hoc, Master Plan Robyn Goinsalvos, Horseback Riding, Abutter
Andy Powell, HHNP Ad Hoc, Conservation Harry Watt, Mountain Biking
John Hall, Watanic Bowmen’s Club Nelson Disco, Planning Board
Mike Ruggiero, HHNP Ad Hoc, MYA Linda Reid, Abutter
Connie Kreider, HHNP Ad Hoc, Heritage Debra Huffman, HHNP Ad Hoc, Master Plan
Janet Comier, HHNP Ad Hoc, Parks Terry Bernhardt, MYA
Tom Vaillancourt, Mountain Biking Roger Blais, Right Riders (ATV)
Denise O’Dwyer, HHNP Ad Hoc Bob L’Heureux, Hunting
Helynne Wenz, HHNP Ad Hoc Bette Philo, Abutter
Ruth Roulx, HHNP Ad Hoc, P&R, Heritage Comm. Shannon Barnes, HHNP Ad Hoc
Members Excused:
Ron Simard, Watanic Bowmen’s Club
Chris Christensen, HHNP Ad Hoc
Others Present:
Kerrie Diers, NRPC Assistant Director
Karen Baker, NRPC Administrative Assistant
Greg Kennedy, owner of abutting property
Meeting Opened
The meeting was
called to order by Tim Tenhave at 7:10 PM.
Announcements:
Tim Tenhave
welcomed the group and announced that the kiosk had been planted at the parking
lot. He let the group know that there
was nothing in it yet and asked them to think about a grand opening or a ribbon
cutting ceremony. He asked for
volunteers or anyone interested should call him or email.
Andy Powell
reminded the group that the seedlings would be available a week from this
Saturday at the lower level town hall.
Hours would be posted and to come early.
Janet Cormier
wanted to clarify that on March 27th, 2003 names for the site were
presented to the Board of Selectmen (BOS).
They were cautioned about using the word “preserve”. If a ballfield was put at the site, it would
be called a park as part of the preserve.
This was just a name given. In
regards to the 300 yard perimeter for active beavers, Janet informed the group
that she lives in a condo and that less than 100 feet from the condo and 25
feet from the road, there is a beaver built dam there with active beavers. Helynne commented that some animals will
adapt to people and some will just die off.
Public or Press
Comment on Agenda
There were no comments/questions from the public.
Review of Minutes
Motion to accept the March 6th, 2006 minutes came from Connie Kreider, seconded by Denise O’Dwyer.
Minutes of the March
6th minutes were approved with changes by the Consensus Building
Group (CBG), 18-0-2.
Motion to accept the March 20th, 2006 minutes came from Debra Huffman, seconded by Andy Powell.
Minutes
of the March 20th minutes were approved with changes by the Consensus
Building Group (CBG), 16-0-4.
Motion to accept the April 2nd, 2006 Site Walk minutes came from Debra Huffman, seconded by Connie Kreider.
Minutes of the April
2nd Site Walk were approved with changes by the Consensus Building
Group (CBG), 14-0-7.
Kerrie went over item #4 of the agenda. She passed around copies of a memo from Tom Kokx informing the group of his analysis and opinion on site location for athletic fields, along with a map showing 3 other potential locations for athletic fields. She went on to say that the last task for the group was to go over the management recommendations and referred to the HHNP Definitive Plan Mapping Exercise #4 Part 3 – Management of HHNP April 17, 2006 handout. Changes and/or additions are shown in bold font as follows:
#1. Consensus Building Group (CBG) – (how it should read first time mentioned, acronym used w/o parenthesis every time thereafter).
#4. The HHNP subcommittee should consist of a minimum of five and a maximum of seven members per RSA: _______. The MCC is encouraged to select representatives from MCC, Parks and Recreation, and volunteer citizens to serve on the subcommittee. A chairperson should be elected annually from the HHNP Subcommittee.
#7. The HHNP Subcommittee should meet quarterly at a minimum in a public session, and report to the ……..
#10. Until Athletic fields are constructed, the Parks and Recreation Department should, in consultation with MCC, manage the athletic complex area in accordance with the recommendations listed in the HHNP Master Plan, Forest Management Plan and Ecological Assessment.
Discussion ensued by the members regarding the Management Recommendation of HHNP. Listed below are some of the questions and concerns.
There
were concerns from Debra Huffman that re-wording #9 would leave too much
fuzziness and based on that assumption, it was decided to leave the wording as
it was.
Harold
Watson felt that ballfields should not be mentioned at all until the ground
work was done.
Linda
Reid wanted to know why Keach Nordstrom had to be mentioned. Andy Powell responded “so we know what plans
we are talking about”.
In
relation to #10 Helynne Wenz wanted to know what is to manage. Kerrie responded “in the interim until
ballfields are constructed”. Helynne
wanted to know why it even had to be said and Denise O’Dwyer responded “to make
it crystal clear”. Deb elaborated on
this by explaining that by not having it written this way, it sets up a
potentially combative situation. By
having it written as such, it keeps everybody talking.
In
regards to #3, Bette Philo wanted to know what “portion” and felt the word
“potentially” should be added. Tim
explained the plan is for where everything can be placed. In addition the consensus will be reflected
in the definitive plan. This is the
process before implementation.
Janet
Cormier suggested that a section be included about going after grants to for
informational purposes to the new selectmen so they know the stipulations. She also mentioned the possibility of getting
an easement for this area. Andy Powell
responded that easement terms have to be approved by council and that certain
restrictions come with funds. Connie
Kreider felt this should not be put in under the management portion.
Motion to accept the wording of the Management of HHNP suggestions came from Debra Huffman and seconded by Shannon Barnes. Voting using the Gradient Scale of Agreement was as follows:
5 votes for #3
5 votes for #2
10 votes for #1
Next for discussion was how to incorporate concerns and/or a minority report and how to implement them into the definitive plan. Andy Powell felt it should be included as part of the overall report and anyone interested in getting together to do this could do so.
Kerrie would need a month to come up with a draft version of the definitive plan. Tim Tenhave felt they could come back with a minority report within 2 to 3 weeks. Bob L’Heureux wanted to know for informational purposes who would file it and that Kerrie should have some kind of indication of what’s coming. Shannon Barnes suggested an outline be requested. Andy Powell spoke up saying they had not gotten together yet and in a couple days, he would get back to Kerrie. Kerrie reminded the group that each section had its own vote and only folks who had voted 6, 7, and 8 based on the Gradient Scale of Agreement sheet should be presenting something in writing that would be incorporated into the definitive plan. Shannon Barnes suggested it be part of the plan as an appendix. Terry Bernhardt felt it should be as an addendum, but should not be part of Kerrie’s report. Denise had a question on the timetable and whether they would have an electronic copy before the scheduled May 15th meeting.
Tim Tenhave did not believe that the definitive plan report would make it to the BOS until sometime at the end of August or beginning of September due to the July voting, budgets, schedules, holidays, etc. Based on that information, Tim let Kerrie decide when to schedule the next meeting (canceling the May 15th meeting). Kerrie notified the members that June 5th would sufficient time to be back with the draft definitive plan for review by the group.
Nelson Disco had a question on stakeholder group endorsements. Kerrie explained the idea behind the statement was for members to get endorsement from their particular interest group (explain to their stakeholder groups why they came up with what they did). She added that when the proposal was done, what appeared to be 11 uses came down to not as many competing uses. Mike Ruggiero was unclear on just what the stakeholder groups are supposed to do. Kerrie responded saying something in writing (endorsement) or a vote which would be attached to the plan. She explained further this was what was proposed and the group could do it differently if they chose.
Several members thought that it would not be productive to attempt to obtain the endorsement from groups and that some groups, such as hunters and abutters, have no formal organization. It was brought up by a member that they replace the word “endorsement” with “presentation”. After presenting the plan to each involved group of stakeholders, they would let them know that they would have opportunity to voice their opinions at a public meeting.
Kerrie added that after June 5th, once the CBG approves or adopts the final definitive plan, they will then present it to their groups. Staff would handle the public meeting. Presentations to stakeholders would come first then the formal media release. Kerrie concluded by letting the group know that she would send out an updated schedule and also coordinate with Andy Powell and Mike Ruggiero on the minority reports.
There were no comments from the public and no press was present.
Several of the members commended Kerrie and Karen on a job well done.
Motion to adjourn came from Debra Huffman, seconded by Denise O’Dwyer. All were in favor and the meeting adjourned at 8:47 pm.
Next meeting will be
held on Monday, June 5th in the
KD/kmb
#235D-32