A. A CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT DISAPPEARED
The public gradually became aware of the extent of Waterford's development plans in the late winter of 2002, and to realize the immense amount of greenspace that would be lost. At a February 7, 2002 meeting of Manchester's Conservation Commission, the developers attempted to compensate for the loss. They proposed a 30 acre conservation easement on a portion of their property that they did not plan to develop. Supposedly this land would help in treating runoff before it entered Millstone Brook - a stream that originates to the north, crosses the property and then enters the Nature Conservancy's Preserve south of Countryside Boulevard.
The minutes of the October 16, 2002 meeting of the Conservation Commission noted that Waterford was still planning on placing this undeveloped area under a conservation easement. However when final arrangements were made on October 24 for the approval of Waterford's single family home project, the expected conservation easement was not mentioned. It has not been heard from again.
B. A NON-EXISTING INSPECTION SYSTEM
Information distributed to the Manchester Planning Board in October of 2002 included recommendations from the Manchester Conservation Commission that concerned the single family homes development. The Chair of the MCC suggested that "the subdivision agreement should include an escrow account for drainage and erosion control inspections by a licensed third party." He noted that "the MCC usually provides this service, but will not have the ability to keep up with this sized project (as an all-volunteer board.)" Poisson recommended that an approach similar to that taken at the Ledgewood project on Candia Road be implemented, i.e., the developer in this case had hired an individual to perform regular inspections and co-ordinate with the EPA Phase 2 program.
At the October 24,2002 Planning Board meeting, Todd Connors, a Planning Board member, again brought up the matter of an on-going construction erosion control inspection program. He reiterated statements made by Poisson, noting that the MCC typically goes to construction sites, either at the request of the Planning Department or regarding a State permit that has been issued. He noted that the MCC looks at the erosion control and drainage improvemens to be sure they are being maintained and constructed according to plan.
Connors said he felt that one of the conditions of approval of the development should stipulate that a licensed consultant, such as a wetland scientist or engineer would be on-site on a regular basis doing erosion control inspections and would send in reports to the Planning staff and Conservation Commission.
Despite the fact that a stipulation of this nature was added to one of the conditions under which the development was approved (at this same meeting), no inspections were performed as the homes development began in the spring of 2003 and proceeded through the summer and fall. At a fall meeting of the Conservation Commission, a member of the public, Pat Mattson, produced photographs (some of which appear on this Web site) of violations of erosion controls procedures seen at various places on the Waterford apartment and homes development sites. She had previously also contacted Armand Forest, alderman of Ward 12, the Hackett Hill ward, about her observations, and Forest subsequently called the violations to the attention of the Manchester Planning Board.
Todd Connors, who is a member of the Conservation Commission as well as the Planning Board, made a site visit to the Waterford Development and pointed out various violations to the project director. It was hoped that as the project continued that Waterford will be required to adhere to "the letter of the law."
BACK TO EXTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT