NEWBURY CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Closed Meeting Minutes Jan. 30, 2007
Present: William Weiler, Deane Geddes, Eric Unger, Frank Perrotta, Suzanne Levine, Katheryn Holmes, William Annable; for the Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests: Brian Hotz, senior land protection specialist; Chris Wells, director of policy
After voting to enter a non-public session to consider the acquisition, sale or lease of a large tract in Newbury, Hotz was asked to describe the project in question. He offered the following memo to the commission:
Property Description: The 850 +/- acre parcel, which is known as the Evro LLC property, is owned by Evan Mosely of Arizona. It lies on the west side Mountain Road in the Town of Newbury and stretches up to the Sunapee - Pillsbury ridge. The land directly abuts other conserved lands including Pillsbury State Park and the Pillsbury – Sunapee Easements (O’Connell Management Company’s 2,600 acres) held by Don Clifford of Northwoodlands. The Andrew Brook Trail, which goes to Lake Solitude, may cross the northeast tip of this land. It is currently the largest unprotected parcel of land in Newbury and is a high priority of both Quabbin to Cardigan Initiative (Q2C) and the NH Wildlife Action Plan.
Project Scope: The property currently is on the market for $595,000. Don Clifford of Northwoodlands has expressed interest in ownership of the 850 +/- acres as he is the direct abutter to the north and west. As mentioned above, Northwoodlands owns the O’Connell Forest Management lands acquired using LCIP funds back in the late 80's. Don Clifford is interested in the long-term forest management of the parcel and is willing to discuss the sale of an easement to help offset the acquisition of the 850 +/- acres. At this time he would like to withhold a 25 acre area for a single house site, depending on the financial implications.
A possible approach would be for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests to hold the grantee interest in the easement and the Town of Newbury to possibly hold executory interest. The Newbury Conservation Commission is being asked to cover much of easement purchase price, transaction costs and stewardship endowment relating to this project. The Forest Society will be responsible for the remaining fundraising and the long-term annual monitor and easement enforcement responsibilities.
Proposed Easement Structure:
The easement will be a typical Forest Society easement that allows the property to be used for agriculture, forestry and noncommercial recreation.
Pedestrian public access will be provided, for hiking, cross country skiing, hunting, fishing…..
There will be one reserved right:
The right to withdraw from easement an area land not to exceed 25 acres restricted in its use for a single house lot. Said lot may be a separately conveyable lot.
Funding: The first step in developing a project budget would be to have a formal appraisal completed to determine the value of the proposed conservation easement. Other expenses such as, title research, hazardous waste assessment, legal fees, Misc. expenses & fees and Easement Stewardship Endowment would be added into the final budget. (End memo)
Hotz noted that the Forest Society is not in a position to take on another large project and that Newbury, because of the land’s location, was the first place to look for funding. He noted that there is no grant funding available for the foreseeable future.
He said that, in his role as chairman of the Warner Conservation Commission, he has seen projects of 2,500-3,000 acres, funded in part by conservation fund money. Warner allots 100 percent of its land-use change tax to the conservation fund. Beyond that, the commission in Warner has asked town meeting for outright appropriations to complete the funding for a project. Warner has appropriated $50,000 a year in the last five years to be used to projects. “Land conservation ranks high with the taxpayer,” he said.
Discussing how the land would be valued, Hotz said an easement would drop the market value. That difference is the easement cost. Clifford’s reservation of 25 acres for a single three-acre house site would further reduce the easement value. That would place the easement value in the $200,00-$225,000 range, Hotz said. The Forest Society, he said, would pay for the appraisal if the Conservation Commission is willing to support the project.
Wells said the Evro property is considered among the “best of the best” land in the natural resource plan for this part of the state. He said it was the last large block left in the area. While the existing corridor protects much land, there is a need to protect lands that abut the corridor, especially land that could be broken up and developed. He said protection of the Evro property works in well with the recommendations stated in the Newbury Natural Resources Inventory.
Weiler noted that acquisition of an easement on the land might be a “hard sell” in Newbury. Holmes noted that protecting a five-acre tract can’t compete with a 50-60,000-acre gradient of natural communities. Geddes asked whether, if left unprotected, the tract could be developed. He noted the tract contains steep slopes and that Newbury’s ordinance protects land that’s more than 25 percent steep. But the ordinance could be changed. Holmes and Weiler agreed the steep-slopes ordinance could be changed.
Wells said protecting the watershed is important because there are a number of small, high-quality watersheds throughout the area. He said the commission should set priorities about other areas in town to protect, but he was told the commission was expecting the conservation plan to set priorities.
Geddes asked about the financial model for the project; “what’s Clifford offering?”. Hotz answered that in conversation, Clifford understands the land’s value would be based on the appraiser’s value of the easement. He estimated a cost to the town of $200,000, more or less.
Geddes questioned whether Clifford would log the tract again. Hotz said he could because the easement would allow commercial forestry and agriculture. He said the Forest Society’s overall management plan requires protected properties to be maintained properly. He said the burden of management rests with the owner.
Perrotta asked whether logging would disturb the Andrew Brook Trail, or whether protection for the trail could be put in the easement. It was decided it was unclear whether the Andrew Brook Trail passed over the land and its exact location would have to be determined.
Holmes said an action plan was needed or the project “could slip away from us.” Hotz said another party was trying to buy the land and Clifford is represented by buyer’s broker Paul Skarin. He said the interested party was planning to cut the land into development parcels.
Hotz said the project time frame could be anywhere from a few weeks to months to do an appraisal, work with Clifford on terms of the easement, then execute a purchase and sales agreement, then about 60 days to closing. The title and boundaries would have to be checked and surveyed. “The Forest Society understands it would have to come up with some of the money for the costs of these procedures. He said the society would be a “good partner” on the technical end. The bottom line – with no appraisal – the cost to the town would be in the $200,000 range. It could go either way, he said, asking for guidance from the commission.
Weiler asked what would happen if the commission couldn’t do $200,000. Hotz responded that “we may have to not do the project at this time.” Holmes wondered if the Q2C group might have some funds for the detail work.
Turning to the process to begin conservation commission involvement in the project, Hotz said the town counsel should be consulted, after meeting with the selectmen to determine if the town would like to retain an “executory (backup) interest” in the easement. He said it wasn’t necessary to take an executory interest approach, but it would be good politics with the selectmen. And without executory interest, the town counsel might question whether the commission can give away funds without retaining any interest.
Hotz and Wells departed. (9:30 p.m.)
Weiler said he wanted to discuss the potential for a conflict of interest among members of the commission. He noted Unger owns land abutting the Evro property. Unger recused himself. Weiler noted Geddes is a real estate agent. Geddes said his company was not involved with the marketing of the land, but “we all work as independents; we all do our own sales.” He noted the land may not be in the Multiple Listing Service. “For that reason I probably would not want to be on the committee to do the project,” Geddes said.
Weiler appointed Holmes a voting member for the night, in the absence of Unger, then entered discussion about whether the commission should take on the project. Members were polled for their opinions.
Holmes: This was an impressive presentation. Brian (Hotz) would help us a lot, teach us a lot. He has passion and intelligence for the work and obviously knows the roads to take. If he held our hand I can’t see any negatives, except should we spend all our money? We would learn a lot and be able to apply the knowledge to all our other projects. We need to know more about Clifford.
Levine: This is a timely project. We need to educate the selectmen.
Geddes: I’m torn. I agree with Holmes. The Andrew Brook Trail would benefit. But the land is steep. How would the town benefit? Ordinances already protect the town. I’m not impressed with the land’s location on the Q2C corridor. Weiler: How about protecting wildlife in the area? Geddes: It’s steep. Weiler: the steep slopes ordinance could easily be changed. Look what happened to the ridgelines around the lake.
Perrotta: We’d be putting an awful lot of money into land that doesn’t seem to be easily developable. We need to find out an awful lot about Clifford, the land and what form the deal would take.
Annable: It’s well worth it. It’s a large parcel of land that adds to what’s already there. Control ordinances can change; I can see a road going right up there. Look at the ridgelines. Lights would go right up the hill. It’s worth looking into.
Weiler: The issue is are we comfortable with committing up to $200,000 of the conservation fund? If not, the project is dead. If we are, we should tell Brian Hotz to go ahead and work out the details. There is the possibility of other easements. By bylaw, the commission is committed to support financially any donated easements. There are other potential uses for the conservation fund, but it won’t dry up completely.
The chair entertained a motion and Holmes moved: To accept the expenditure of up to $200,000 to acquire the Evro property, with the condition the commission is assured that its interests are preserved, based on the information presented by the Forest Society. Approved unanimously.
Weiler said the next step was to call Hotz and tell him to proceed.
Motion: That the Conservation Commission exit the non-public session. Moved Levine, seconded Holmes; approved unanimously.
Prepared by: Frank Perrotta
| 
