GRA: Conservation Commission Stands Its Ground


Dedicated to Securing A Truly Perfect Location for Goffstown's Future Kindergarten & Elementary Schools

August 25, 2005

Conservation Commmission Stands Its Ground
School district attempts to sway commission memo to DES
Read Meeting Minutes | Read Commission Memo to NHDES

GOFFSTOWN, NH - The Conservation Commission, at its August 24, 2005 meeting, stood its ground against numerous attempts by school superintendent Darryll Lockwood and school board member Scott Gross to rebuke the Commission's July 13th report to the planning board regarding the Glen Lake kindergarten site, and to influence the commission's forthcoming memo to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

Despite repeated interruptions by both Lockwood and Gross, Commission members reiterated their objections to the Glen Lake site, and again stated that state-mandated studies of alternate sites had not been done (see Ed 321.03, section (h)3 ).

Proper Protocol Ignored

In attempting to sway the Commission, Lockwood and Gross used a variety of tactics. At the beginning of the meeting during a discussion about the Open Space Plan, Lockwood interrupted the proceedings and asked if the minutes from the July 6th meeting were to be approved, as he wanted to know who had conducted the site walk of the Glen Lake site on July 5th, and had concerns over the commission's subsequent July 13th report to the planning board. Commission member Karen McRae immediately asked Commission Vice-Chairman David Nieman to get back to discussing the Open Space Plan.

But Lockwood ignored McRae and again interrupted, asking once more about the meeting minutes. Then Gross interrupted, asking how notes taken during a meeting by a Commission member might have been included in the Commission's July 13th report but not in the meeting minutes.

Once more, Lockwood interrupted to ask about the minutes and the attendees at the July 5th site walk. Mr. Nieman explained that some items discussed during the July 6th meeting may indeed be absent from the minutes, as the recording secretary had not been present at the time.

Lockwood's next tactic was to attack GRA Chairman (and Commission Chairman) Collis Adams, citing a letter Adams had written to the DES requesting an extension on the permit. But McRae pointed out that such extensions are requested all the time, especially when plans are not submitted in a timely fashion, as was the case in this instance. Kimberly Peace also agreed with McRae, and reiterated that the commission had not received a site plan at the time they conducted the site walk.

Lockwood then tried to turn the Commission's attention to the GRA web site and the fact that the Commission's July 13th report was published there. He suggested that the Commission look at this site and the comments being made there. Nieman agreed to do that, but told Lockwood in no uncertain terms that the GRA website has nothing to do with the Conservation Commission.

Undeterred, Lockwood then claimed that statements made by Adams during the meeting were in the minutes. But Nieman pointed out that they were comments, not statements, and were reflected as such in the minutes. Then, out of the blue, Lockwood suddenly made a claim that the proposed site contained no water. At this point, Nieman and the Commission members had apparently had enough of the interruptions, and turned their focus back to the agenda, and the Open Space Plan.

Attempts to Alter the Minutes

After concluding discussions on the Open Space Plan, the Commission turned its attention to approving the minutes from the July 6th meeting. They agreed to add to those minutes a list of the individuals who were present at the July 6th site walk, and pointed out that the information contained in the Commission's July 13th report was gathered from an outline produced of that site walk. The Commission then prepared to approve those minutes.

Lockwood immediately interjected, claiming that the minutes contained a number of untruths and accused the Commission of including public comments in the minutes. Gross then claimed an inference that the Commission was attempting to kill the Kindergarten Project. Lockwood also told the Commission that its statements regarding acreage were wrong. But Nieman quickly pointed out that those statements were made by the engineer.

Ultimately the Commission agreed to the school district's request to associate information contained in the minutes with those individuals who provided it. But the content of the minutes, despite Lockwood's attempts to the contrary, remained consistent.

Commission Not Fooled

After approval of the minutes, the Commission addressed the NH Dredge and Fill application for the Kindergarten site. A memo to the DES expressing their concerns over the site was discussed, citing a lack of an analysis of an alternate site and the failure of the plan to meet minimum state requirements for buildable area (see Ed 321.03, sections (f) and (h) ).

Lockwood then announced that the school district could expand the site to include an elementary school if and when the voters might chose to do so, but that no one knows if it ever will be done. The GRA believes this statement was made in an attempt to sway the Commission away from including comments and concerns about the additional environmental impacts an additional elementary school would have on the site in its report to the DES.

The Commission was not fooled.

Kimberly Peace immediately responded to Lockwood's statement by saying that since the school district claims the potential to expand the site to include an elementary school [Ed. note: Lockwood presented a "future" site plan which included an elementary school at the August 11th planning board meeting. Click here for details], this potential (and its vastly increased impacts) needed to be included in the report to the DES. She also stated that the loop road is in the wetland crossing, and again expressed her belief that an alternative site analysis had not been properly conducted.

Here Gross questioned the Commission as to its claims that "another site" was a better site, but the Commission stuck to the subject at hand: the Glen Lake site. Again, members reiterated their concerns about the loop road and lack of an alternative site analysis. They also cited concerns about inadequate treatment of runoff from impervious surfaces, and the potential for such runoff to flow into the stream draining an area which is a tributary into Glen Lake itself.

Gross then questioned the Commission's technical ability to make this determination. But Nieman quickly fired back that the site plan removes most of the buffer zone, thereby negating the capacity that buffer zone currently provides.

Ultimately, the Commission remained undeterred in its concerns over the Glen Lake site being used to construct our Kindergarten, and submitted their memo to the NHDES expressing those concerns as planned.

Click here to read the Conservation Commission Memo to the NH DES