28 April 2007
 
Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Post a comment (login required)
Ed. Note: Next Saturday a.m. at Town Hall--I'll supply the exact time later--is the conclusion of the town meeting that was recessed to allow a properly noticed bond hearing on the proposal to purchase a conservation easement on the Ballam Farm property west of Rt. 12 and north of Rite Aid.  The following are a letter from Conservation Commission member Mel Schupack urging townspeople to turn out and vote for the project and a set of Questions & Answers about the project.  CCB

Dear Friends,
    On May 5th there will be an opportunity to vote to protect land near our River Well which protects the Town of Walpole's public drinking water supply while simultaneously preserving prime farmland. Please vote YES! The cost to taxpayers will be about $8.76 per $100,000 assessed property value for the first year loan payment. There is the liklehood that the cost to taxpayers in future years will be significantly less due to funds to be provided by the current change of use tax program that the Conservation Commission has pledged to use for future payments of the 10 year loan. This is a rare and affordable opportunity to do some very good work for our entire community and to help avoid commercial sprawl in our major commercial district. This will be our only chance to save this significant asset for the town. Please join me in voting Yes on May 5th.
     I am attaching a hand-out that explains the project and a document of questions and answers.  Please let me know if you have any other questions about this important project for our town. Send me an email or call 756-9389 if you do want to ask any question. ?(You can also call Josh Kelly of the Trust for Public Land who's number is on the Questions and Answers attachment.)      We need a good turn-out for the May 5th as such bond issues require a two-thirds positive vote. Please come and vote for this warrant article.
 
Thank you.
Regards,
Mel

Ballam Farm Conservation Easement - Article #6

Question and Answer

What is the Ballam Farm project?  The Ballam Farm project is an effort to protect Walpole’s drinking water aquifer, to preserve prime working farmland, and to protect almost ½ mile of undeveloped shoreline along the Connecticut River – all important priorities of the town’s master plan. The Ballam Farm property is 60 acres of prime farmland adjacent to Walpole’s drinking water well, known as the River Well, located between Route 12 and the Connecticut River.  The property makes up nearly 20% of the drinking water aquifer or source water protection area for the River Well. 

A  "Yes Vote will… " Preserve 52 acres of working farmland, protect the town’s most productive drinking water source and will protect nearly ½ mile of Connecticut River shoreline.  A Yes Vote will also bring in $448,000 in federal and state grant money to help the town purchase the conservation easement and 8 acres.

A No Vote will…  Likely result in the loss of this farmland to commercial “strip” development and/or residential development.

    How will the land be protected?  The Trust for Public Land (TPL) a private, not-for-profit conservation group, is working with the town to convey a conservation easement and additional 8 acre area to the town.  The Monadnock Conservancy will hold an executory interest in the conservation easement.

What are the sources of funding for the project? Federal and state grants and funds to the Walpole Conservation Commission totaling $498,000 have been approved for the protection of Ballam Farm.  Town funding in the amount of up to $277,000 is required to match these grants and to complete the project.

What does Article 6 ask the Town to do? Article 6 requests authority for the town to raise and appropriate the total sum of $775,000 for the purchase of a conservation easement over approximately 52 acres and an 8 acre addition to the Town’s river well property in fee simple and for associated project costs to permanently protect the Ballam Farm property.  In addition it requests authority for the town to accept federal and state grants and to borrow up to $277,000 through a low interest loan from the NH Department of Environmental Services (DES) at 2.18% for 10 years.  The first year payment will cost the town approximately $31,000 and the Selectmen and the Conservation Commission have agreed to use portions of the Land Use Change Tax to help make these payments.

What is the tax impact to the Town? About 9¢ per $1,000 of assessed real estate value each year for 10 years, the length of the DES loan.  The cost would likely be even less by paying the loan off with town Land Use Change Tax revenues.

Why now? In the past Wal-Mart tried to locate a store on this property.  More recently a car dealership was proposed along with some residential development.  After discussions with town officials it was clear that this was a property the town wanted protected.  Last spring TPL took the property off the market by securing an agreement for its purchase and began applying for grants for the property’s protection.  Without town funding the opportunity to protect this piece of land and a significant portion of the town’s drinking water aquifer, could be lost.

Is agriculture compatible with drinking water protection? Yes, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the NH Department of Environmental Services (DES) are both partners in this project.  DES allows agriculture within source water protection areas provided they are outside of a well’s sanitary radius (400 feet).  The Ballam Farm property is outside of that boundary.  Through this project the town will gain an additional 8 acres around their River Well as an additional buffer.  Under the terms of the conservation easement, farm operations must be conducted in accordance with an approved NRCS Conservation Plan.

Project Partners and Supporters:

Walpole Board of Selectmen, Walpole Conservation Commission, Walpole Wellhead Protection Committee, The Monadnock Conservancy, Granite State Rural Water Association, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

For more information, call Josh Kelly of The Trust for Public Land at (802) 223-1373 ext. 23.


Posted by Chuck Bingaman at 8:06 PM | Comments (33)
 
Subscription Options

You are not logged in, so your subscription status for this entry is unknown. You can login or register here.

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
How are the three "new" buildings and future building on the other part of the Ballam Farm affecting the water source? Will this development be on town sewer or are they putting in private septic systems? Bill M

Posted by bill on April 29, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
What "three "new" bulidings" are you talking about? If this passes, there would be an agricultural conservation easment permanently protecting the Ballam farm from any development or new buildings except for the designated one acre house lot should a farmer chose to live on the farm and another area designated for a few farm outbuildings for supplies and equipment if needed. These are located away from the wellhead and would require best managment practices for the wellhead protection.

Posted by melschupack on April 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
the original Ballam Farm included the big red barn and house at the foot of the hill, the land where one must go to access the land we are voting on. It now has three houses and a fourth foundation, two of which are behind the red barn. Those lots drain toward the river and are, i believe, part of the acquifier system. And when water and/or wells are tested and found to have bacteria, isn't that bacteria sometimes caused by animal feces, i.e. cow @#H%! Bill M

Posted by bill on April 29, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Those are not on the Ballam Farm property so far as I know and are north of it (near Pete's farmstand), if I understand you. Anything built on the wellhead protection zone must protect against contaminating the aquifer and that is part of the site review process. The agricultural land must use best managment practices and that protects against contamination. There has been no such contamination with all the farming around the Ballam Farm that I know about. You can ask Mark Houghton and I believe that is what he will tell you and what he did mention at one of the hearings as I recall.

Posted by melschupack on April 29, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Bill, ilf you would send me your email address I can send you a map/arial photo showing the Ballam Farm and there are no buildings on it. It would be a PDF file. My email is: melschupack@aya.yale.edu.

Posted by melschupack on April 29, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Mel, the buildings I refer to are the ORIGINAL Ballam Farm. Obviously it was subdivided but my questions remains, is that development on town water and sewer? Bill M

Posted by bill on April 29, 2007 at 7:00 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Bill that is not about the project to protect the Ballam Farm. I don't know if those buildings are on town water and sewer but I suppose you can inquire about that at Town Hall. Mel

Posted by melschupack on April 29, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
I encourage people to vote "no" on this one. If you read the fine print TPL is buying the property. Selling the town 8 acres at $850,00 (thats alot of money per acre). The town is getting all but $300,000 through grants (again our Federal money). TPL wil resell the agricultural area at a profit to them. THEY ARE MAKING MONEY OFF US!!!!!! Of course TPL wants this!!!!! If TPL wants to protect the land so badly, let them purchase it, put it into agricultural use, and resell it. They can do all this without our tax dollars. We as a town DO NOT NEED TO GET INVOLVED with the purchase and sale of this property. Todd Patch.

Posted by todd p on April 30, 2007 at 6:25 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Todd, this is a gross distortion and misrepresentation. The TPL is not making a profit and is a non-profit organization that works to protect land all over the US. They do have to cover their administration costs, as would any non-profit. The town is not paying anything like $850,000 for 8 acres. Right now it looks like it will be borrowing more like $262,000 for a 10 year DES loan at 2.18% to get the additional 8 acres fee simple for water protection now and in the future, and also getting a conservation easement on the remaining 52 acres of the Ballam Farm to permnanently protect it as prime agricultural land and to protect an important water source. The town will own the conservation easement and monitor it, with back-up from the Monadnock Conservancy.

Posted by melschupack on April 30, 2007 at 7:05 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Although the portion of property I refer to is not involved in the vote on Sat, it is very much involved in the water protection area. So if the water department and conservation commission were not concerned about this developer polluting our water, why the big concern over this 52 acres. Is this just a ploy to prevent further development in the ESTABLISHED commercial area of Walpole? Bill M

Posted by bill on April 30, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Here's what I don't understand: we are SO fortunate to be surrounded by natural beauty, natural resources and fertile farmland, yet there seem to be so many people in this town practically frothing at the mouth to develop it. Once you've built and paved, you will NEVER have that land back again. Would we so lightly give up this gift simply for the entertainment value of "going shopping"? Shame on us, then. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people could be content with less "stuff" and appreciate the things that truly matter more? Those who are so solidly behind developing malls and restaurants here in Walpole should pay a visit to eastern Massachusetts, where suburban sprawl has created a nightmarish world of crowds, noise, stress, constant traffic and rampant consumerism. Then think about how sad it would be to see Walpole turn into that. It's already happening as close by as Keene. I urge everyone to attend Saturday's TM again, and vote "yes" for the acquisition of Ballam Farm.

Posted by cathywhite on April 30, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Cathy, I agree with you natural beauty, natural resources, and fertile farmland is a wonderful thing. This town is filled with all of those. However, I do not feel that where this property is lends itself to farmland. This is prime commercial property, that is surrounded by commercial land, on a state maintained road. It should be commercial property. If you want something other than commercial property come forth with an idea for a recreational park with ballfields and play areas. A place for kids to play (similar to Patch Park in Charlestown) and a place to enjoy the natural beauty. That I will vote for. Until then I will continue to support a no vote, and leave the land as commercial property.

Posted by todd p on April 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
The land invovled, along the river valley, happens to be prime farm soil and is about the best soil in this country. This, together with the water protection, gives it the highest conservation value of almost any land we have. There is still plenty of commercial area to be develped in the commercial district. Mel

Posted by melschupack on April 30, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
You're right Mel! Rich, alluvial bottomland is the best soil one could want for agricultural pursuits. To call it "prime commercial land" is odd - after all, we humans labeled it "commercially-zoned" without a thought as to it's true best use. And Todd, I must say that I find it ironic that we actually HAVE a great little ballfield (with plenty of room for a playground, as well as parking in the adjacent plaza)in the commercial zone already - and what does Berkshire want to do with this potential gem? Level it and put in an enormous shopping center. Oh well,there's just no money in parks and ballfields. My husband and I were reminded of this at one of their long-ago focus groups when Mr. Traynor said "I can't make money on dirt". Sort of says it all, doesn't it?

Posted by cathywhite on April 30, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most of the land to be preserved in the rural-ag zone? The commercial land on that side extends just 250 feet back from Route 12.

Posted by jackneary on April 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
As I understand it, the commercial zoned land (250' from Rte 12) will also be included in the conservation easement and the rest is rural-agricultural zoning, which also can be developed (residential as in one plan I'd seen) if this article doesn't pass.

Posted by melschupack on April 30, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
If this conservation easement was going to open this area so that we taxpayers who are footing the bill could enjoy acess to the river for boating and fishing or even a picnic,I would vote for it in a minute. I believe if I am spending my money to preserve 52 acres of land I should be able to access it. That will not happen because whomever purchases the land or rents it will have complete control over it. My tax money that goes for State or National parks allows me to access them for recreation purposes. What will I get in return on this property? And don't tell me a "pretty" piece of property with cow #@#$ running off down the hill into well area! Something more to leave a foul taste in our mouths. Bill M.

Posted by bill on April 30, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
There can be accesss and the opportunity for access to the river would there. But that would come later. If the town wanted to put in a boat landing (assuming it would be more feasible than the one we already have) or a fishing pier that would be possible, so far as I know. (Of course the town would have to pay for it.) The conservaton easement would be owned by the town. It would not be closed off to public access so far as I know, so long as we respect the farmer's fields. (There are access roads for foot use both to to north and the south.)

Posted by melschupack on April 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
I still say lets look at another option. Lets look at having the town purchase the property (through grants, deeds, loans, what have you) and turn the entire 60 acres into a recreational facility. Where there are more than 1 baseball field (that is not fenced in and locked), some soccer fields, Football fields, and just area to run and play without cars racing by. A recreational area could give access to the river for swimming, boating and fishing. And as one who knows that 1 baseball filed next to Shaw's is a scheduling nightmare. Between the numerous teams that we have in town, access to it can be hard. Especially when you stop by and the fence gate is locked. I have been at that ballfield watching my son play ball, and can say that it is not a place I want my kids to play. It is surrounded by very busy roads and parking lots. Hard to kick a ball when 50 ft away you have cars going by.

Posted by todd p on May 1, 2007 at 6:26 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
When you have lined up the grants for that let us know. By then, of course, it would probably already have been developed commercially and residentially if we don't protect it now. Meanwhile we might consider that such recreational uses and vehicular access to it on a wellhead protection area would pose a significant risk to the water and underlyling aquifer and the mitigation requirements would add considerably to the cost. I'd suggest you try another area for your park.. Mel Schupack

Posted by melschupack on May 1, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
I should like to add that the usual practice with such conservation projects where there already is a farmer farming the land is to give that farmer the right of first refusal in the biddng process. Some of our local farmers objected to this and Boggy Meadow has generously agreed to give up that first right of refusal so it will be a straight bidding process. I hope those of you who can appreciate what is being offered to our town will come to Town Meeting on Sat. at 10:00AM and vote for the warrant article. If we don't use the grants we have obtained another town will. Mel

Posted by melschupack on May 1, 2007 at 9:07 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
As far as access across this land to the river, we were told at either the hearing or town meeting or both that the land owner has the right of allowing or denying access. Conservation easement only prohibits unwanted development. The access would be far enough north of the well to prevent any problem. But that is a mute question because no acess will ever be allowed. All I am looking for is truth and not a lot of hype and scare tactics. Bill M

Posted by bill on May 1, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
How do you know no access will ever be allowed? The land is not posted and is in current use and there is no indication that would change. Mel S

Posted by melschupack on May 1, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Your Selectmen said access to the land would be the same as if I went to Mr. Sawyer's farm. If he owns it , under conservation or not, he can deny access. So whoever owns the 44 acres that will be sold by the Land Trust or Conservation Commission after Saturdays vote, controls acess to the land even if a meager portion of my tax dollars pay for it! Ask the selectmen or Mr Josh Kelly! Bill M

Posted by bill on May 1, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
What you wrote was that "no accesss will ever be allowed". That's not so now and you have no indication anyone would post the land and loose some of the beneifits of current use, do you? I certainly hope you're right that the Ballam Farm will be sold as conservation farmland after the vote Sat. (I believe it's 52 acres rather than 44, less that one acre potential house site.)

Posted by melschupack on May 1, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Ah, let's see, 52 acres minus the 8 acres that the town will own - Hmmm, sounds like 44 acres to me! And a person does not have to "Post" their land to prevent people from trespassing. Maybe it different where you come from. Bill M.

Posted by bill on May 1, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Actually, Bill, Jeff and I were told by the Walpole police that our land DID in fact have to be posted before they could/would do anything about a particularly problematic neighbor who was trespassing. Maybe it's different in your neighborhood, but I doubt it.

Posted by cathywhite on May 1, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Bill, I think it's 60 acres, minus 8 that will be fee simple to the town. Actually I believe land does have to be posted, with a sign every 75 feet either to restrict all access ("No trespassing") or just to restrict hunting ("No Hunting"). Signs are also to have the owners name and phone number as I recall. One would lose some of the benefits from being in current use with either. Land fully in current use is available for all recreational uses, except there is no hunting within 300 yards (I think) of any building. Of course you can check it out if you want.

Posted by melschupack on May 1, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Just to correct what I posted earlier (my memory was a bit off): The 20% Recreation Discount If a landowner decides not to post, and opens the property to public use without an entrance fee, the land is entitled to a 20% reduction in the current use assessment of the acres opened to public recre- ational use, which also qualifies for current use assessment under an open space category. The owner of land who opens his land to pub- lic recreational use shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage to any person, and shall be subject to the same duty of care as provided in RSA 212:34 (visit www.nhspace.org/ cu-liability.shtml). To receive the 20% Recreation Discount the landowner must allow all of the following activities: Hunting Skiing Fishing Snowshoeing Hiking Nature Observation If any of these activities are detrimental to a specific agricultural or forest crop, that activity may be prohibited. If the 20% recreational adjustment has been granted, posting to prohibit any activity listed above requires approval of the local assessing officials. The landowner may prohibit trespass upon his property for all oth- er activities, including use of mechanized and off-highway vehicles (such as snowmobiles and four-wheelers), camping, cutting down trees, etc. Posting land to prohibit these activities will not affect the 20% recreation adjustment.

What are the legal requirements for posting property? Under state law (RSA 635:4), the legal manner of posting calls for posting durable signs with any words describing the physical activity prohibited, such as "No Hunting or Trespassing," in letters at least 2 inches high, and with the owner's name and address. The signs may be no further than 100 yards apart on all sides of the property and shall also be posted at gates, bars and all commonly used entrances.

Posted by melschupack on May 1, 2007 at 6:27 PM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Basically, in a nut shell, if the land becomes a conservation easement, the public may or may not have access to it. It is up to the property owner. Once this easement is applied to the deed, it may never come off. Many people think off the land being used as corn fields, which is a good possibility. However, with such a small amount of land, and a house on it, I would further suggest the property be self sufficient. Meaning a small farm. That may include the cows, pigs, goats, sheep, horses, and any other animal that may roam on 52 acres. I for one do not want to go to Fall Mountain to buy lumber and smell a pig farm across the street. It may not happen today, or tomorrow, but in agricultural use it can happen. Imagine the smell of pigs, at the close by shopping center or at nearby homes. Your property values will decrease. This may be an exaggeration, but it IS POSSIBLE!

On another note, without commercial growth the towns taxes will continue to rise. The town has already rejected a wonderful proposal for the Huntington property. This conservation easement will be another swipe at paying higher taxes. With the gas prices going up and up, people want to be close to home. Commercial property will provide jobs, tax money, and promote local spending. Agricultural use will provide none of those.

With a "no" vote, you are not saying lets put in a strip mall (after all no building can be over 40,000 sq ft), but allowing for small business a place to be. Maybe Burdicks's would like a store in the area? Ruggles and Hunt a bigger place? These are quality town businesses that could be turned away from expanding to that site because of this.

Posted by todd p on May 2, 2007 at 6:46 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Wow! I kind of like farming - and farmers!

Posted by jackneary on May 2, 2007 at 7:24 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
I have nothing against farmers or farming. My father in law was a farmer, my brother in law is a farmer. It is a good family job, however familiy farming is decreasing. The family farms of today are not what they were 25 or 50 yrs ago. There are less of them. Larger farms have taken over, and can produce much more than smaller family farms. My brother in law milks 40 head, he sometimes has a hard time making ends meet (and the farm was given to him - no mortgage or equipment loans to pay). A larger farm up the road from him milks over 200 head, and appears to have no problems making ends meet. The smaller family farms are going by the wayside in lieu of larger more productive farms. Do the research, and you'll find the same. Small family farms are going under, while larger farms are growing.

Posted by todd p on May 2, 2007 at 8:09 AM

Re: Information on Next Saturday's Reconvened Town Meeting
Wow, Todd, a pig farm. Wouldn't those opposed to the Berkshire plan have second thoughts once they got a whiff of a pig farm. LOL. I grew up on a farm and some of my fondest memories are from those days. I have a great respect for farmers. They work hard and put in long days BUT Todd is right, no one can make a living off of a "small" farm. Therefore the land in question will be used as a corn field or vegetable garden, and while both are worthwhile endeavors will not help lower our taxes. And perhaps the local police will not do anything about trespasses unless your land is posted, I do not believe anyone in this town would put up with me camping on their lawn and having a family picnic. Lots of posted property around the area is illeaglly posted according to Mel's RSA's. Bill M.

Posted by bill on May 2, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Post a comment (login required)