Rindge Conservation Committee Letter



Tel. (603) 899-5181 Fax (603) 899-2101 TDD 1-800-735-2964

Minutes for Meeting on August 10, 2020 at the Rindge Recreation/Community Center

The meeting convened at 7:00 pm.

Attendees: David Drouin, Richard Mellor, Phil Simeone, William Preston, Deni Dickler, Fred Dodge, Al Lefebvre, Fred Rogers, Paul McPhie, Rob Rubendall

  • Site review of Navian Development at Map 4 Lot 23, Route 119. Drouin invited discussion of the site review held at on July 25. Commission members and residents in attendance raised the following issues with Nate Chamberlain of Navian Development who was present:

    • Amount of water that will be extracted daily to support the development. Chamberlain indicated that about 30,000 gallons would be needed daily. Dodge calculated that about 900,000 gallons would be withdrawn monthly. Chamberlain indicated that while 30,000 gallons is used daily, much of that would be fed back into the ground. However, a resi- dent noted that much water is lost to evaporation and is not fed back into the ground. When asked, Chamberlain did not know how much water is available in the aquifer. Commission members and residents expressed concern about the overall effects that the daily and monthly water demands would have on the local area. Commission mem- bers and attending public requested that a third-party hydrogeologist be hired to evalu- ate the capacity of the aquifer and the effects on development’s water demands and how the effects of such a large drawdown will affect the local area.

    • Questions were raised throughout the meeting about water supply and the potential ad- verse effects of large spring run-offs on the local area and particularly on Maplewood Drive and East Monomonac Road; these could adversely affect road and other culverts. The need for data now about stream volume at different times of the year (spring, summer, fall, winter) in order to properly gauge how the development affects the vol- ume in the future and to assign responsibility for problems.

    • Questions arose about who would be responsible for retention pond maintenance in the future and how it would be ensured.

    • As planned, grass rather than natural habitat material appears to be going to be used in the 50’ buffer area abutting wetlands which will introduce phosphates into the environ- mentally sensitive areas.

    • While the development report indicates that no endangered species have been report- ed in the area, it was suggested that a wildlife professional conduct a survey prior to final project approval.

    • Since the plan presented is not the final plan, the Commission reserves the right to re- view and comment when a final plan is presented for approval.

Below is the Conservation Commission’s response sent to the Rindge Planning Board concerning the Navian Development at Map 4 Lot 23, Route 119.



Tel. (603) 899-5181 Fax (603) 899-2101 TDD 1-800-735-2964

August 27, 2020

Rindge Planning Board 30 Payson Hill Rd Rindge, NH 03461



Tel. (603) 899-5181 Fax (603) 899-2101 TDD 1-800-735-2964

Email: rindgeconcom@town.rindge.nh.us

Subj: Map 4, Lot 23, Navian Development

The Rindge Conservation Commission reviewed the preliminary plans of this proposed 66-unit devel- opment over the course of two regular meetings and one site visit with Navian representative David Chamber- lain. The Commission is particularly concerned with the wetland impacts due to crossings, impervious surface runoff and storm water management. The Commission also is concerned about the aquifer under this property due to the water extraction for domestic use. What is very clear to the Commission at the end of this review is the necessity for a third-party review of these issues.

The Commission respectfully requests that the Planning Board engage an independent hydrologist and/ or hydrogeologist to study the impact of this project. This study to include, but not be limited to:

  1. The groundwater recharge rate, both preconstruction and post completion.

  2. Calculating worse case scenarios for the culvert downstream that crosses under East Monomonac Road that has had some issues handling seasonal fluctuations. The study of the culvert to include consultation with the Rindge DPW director for historical context.

  3. The runoff from the high ground to the east and south that is also flowing onto this property. Will the runoff from this property flow into the same wetlands or will there be some redirection that may starve an individual wetland?

  4. The large size of this development requires thirty drilled residential wells; twenty six single family and four multi-family, enough that the Commission questions the impact to the aquifer of such a wa- ter withdrawal, so the Commission asks that the hydrology studies also include the impact to and the recharging of the aquifer.

  5. The increased thermal impact of the development on the surface water leaving the site.

The Commission will be required to provide an opinion to the Board of Adjustment in their Special Exception process for the wetland’s crossings. The Commission requests that for the sake of clarity and completeness, that any and all intrusions into the 50ft wetlands buffer be included at the time of the application. The Commission requested to the developer an increase in the size of the two smaller culverts and that they have natural bottoms.

The snow storage for the multi-family units must be defined, as well as a salt management plan for DES. The need for the nitrate easement into common land needs clarity, as there seems to be ambiguity on that sub- ject. The outdoor storage area should have some defined limits on what is allowed and what is prohibited, i.e. junk, old vehicles, hazardous materials, etc.

Because the roads will be submitted to the Town for acceptance, a process that is not guaranteed to hap- pen, the maintenance of the filtration swales and basins needs to be clearly defined, whether it is the responsibil- ity of the Town or the home owners association, so that the Rindge voters know the liability to be assumed.

Since there is no defined and controlled areas for outside dumpsters, a prohibition to their future use should be one of the conditions of the whole development. In the same vein, since this is a phased project, a siltation control management plan needs to be specified for installation and continuous management, for the en- tire construction time frame.

The Commission is concerned about possible lead contamination of the soils and the surface waters due to the known history of this property’s use as a shooting range. A study of that portion of the property for lead to be conducted and to include a remediation plan, if deemed necessary.

One of the features touted by the developer is the common or as claimed; “conserved” acreage, being so much greater than the minimum required and that it would be protected by an easement. The protection of the common land should be clearly defined and permanently protected very early in the approval process. There have been assumptions with other developments that this is an easy accomplishment, but the Commission has found that this is not always the case. The problem with these isolated common lands are that they are not often connected to other conserved lands or are not part of a corridor to other such lands, so that getting a land trust to assume the easement is often impossible and in this case the common land is intertwined throughout the devel- opment rather than a discrete unit. Either a third-party easement or some deed restriction associated with the Land Owner’s Association, will need to have funds escrowed to pay for annual monitoring and potential legal defense.

To this point regarding the common land, the Commission requests that the Planning Board engage a natural resources scientist to consider the impact of this project to the wildlife and fauna within the total project area and establish a baseline report of preconstruction conditions along with anticipated final conditions.

Because this initial report is based on the preliminary plans that have not yet been accepted by the Plan- ning Board, the Commission requests that the final plans, as updated by the developer through the Planning Board process, be reviewed by the Commission for the above issues. The Commission looks forward to contin- ued cooperation with the Planning Board.

Respectfully submitted,

David G. Drouin Chair, RCC



Tel. (603) 899-5181 Fax (603) 899-2101 TDD 1-800-735-2964

Verified by MonsterInsights