Jonathan Edwards, Director
Planning@HanoverNH.org

Rural Study Group 2007

Other Documents
Downtown Hanover Vision
Guiding Growth in Rural Hanover
'Something for Everyone' Scenic Locales Report
Class VI Roads In Hanover

Zoning
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Zoning Ordinance


Conservation
Conservation Commission
Open Space Priorities Plan
Trails
Flora and Fauna
Protected Lands

Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing Commission
Affordable Housing Study
Gile Tract Housing

Inspections
Building Code
Building Code Advisory Committee






Department Sitemap

'Something for Everyone' Appendix

The Scenic Locales Committee met twice a month from September 1997 through August 1998.

Discovering little preconception or experience among themselves about how to approach the committee assignment, members initially drove around Hanover, marking on maps those locations each found by any personal definition to be "scenic". The combined list of these places was augmented by all locations mentioned as "scenic" in the most recent Master Plan (1986).

A search of relevant literature provided some definitions of scenic landscapes and methods by which to analyze and prioritize them. A Committee Matrix and criteria with which to rank locations on the list was developed. Members revisited the listed sites to assign numerical values which were later totalled to provide prioritizations (see Table A-1).

The committee also sought community input through public surveys (see this appendix, "Public Participation and Surveys".). The two lists - committee and public - of locations were combined for a final analysis, which introduced the concept of "vulnerability" - the extent to which, in the committee's view, the top locales are currently threatened by development pressures - to establish the final High-Priority Action List.

The committee recognizes that its information may be incomplete, and that vulnerabilities are subject to rapid change. It therefore recommends re-evaluation of vulnerability within the framework of this committee's methods and survey results by a group of unbiassed citizens at frequent and regular intervals .

Development of goals and recommendations for scenic protection completed the committee's assignment.

HILLTOPS AND RIDGES
Designations include slopes as well as ridgelines.

WATER BODIES
Mink Brook Corridor
Includes the whole length of Mink Brook from the slopes of Moose Mountain to the confluence with the Connecticut River, with associated wetlands, and a contiguous natural buffer strip of varying but significant width on either side.

Dogford Road Wetlands
Refers to the extensive wetlands, now beaver-dammed, on the left-hand side of Lower Dogford Road, starting in the vicinity of Jones and Paine Roads.

ROADS
[No notes]

CULTURAL FEATURES
The committee made no effort to be exhaustive in its listing of historic structures and landscapes. Houses, industrial sites and institutional locations are not included. The committee recommends that such a study be done in its own right. The entries in the Matrix are listed here for their scenic properties only.

Etna Farm at Ruddsboro Road
Refers to the actively-farmed, forest-bordered fields and barn to the southwest of the intersection of Etna Road and Ruddsboro Road.

Cory Road Stone Bridge, Cory Road Stone Culvert
Located on a Class VI road near Hanover Center, these structures are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Great Hollow Road Bridge
On Etna Road within sight of the intersection with Greensboro Road, this bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Etna Commons
The playing fields and mowed area between Ruddsboro Road and the First Baptist Church/Trumbull Hall.

NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE
Trescott Ascutney View
The open farm land and fields on Trescott Road just to the southeast of the Appalachian Trail crossing, across which people on the road have a clear view of Mt. Ascutney.


Dogford Road Open Farm Land
Active farmland on the right and left sides of Lower Dogford Road above the Dogford Road wetlands.


COMMUNITY GATEWAYS AND/OR LANDSCAPE TRANSITIONS
Trescott Road "saddle"
The view of Moose Mountain, the horse farm and the wetlands serves as a transition area between urban Hanover and Etna.

Noteworthy areas and sites are organized into six subdivisions: hilltops and ridges, water bodies, roads, cultural features, natural features and open space, and community gateways and/or landscape transitions. The visual quality of each was assessed by assigning numerical values in the nine categories described below. Attributes of high value were given 2 points, and attributes of moderate value 1 point. Zero points indicated "does not apply". Unique attributes were given 20 points to assure a numerical total higher than the sum of high-value designations in all other categories combined.

1. Visibility from public roads
In practice, much of what the average person sees of the landscape is viewed from a vehicle. High value is given to landscapes visible from roadways. Examples: Connecticut River, Dartmouth Green and its surroundings, Trescott Ascutney view.


2. Frequency site or view is seen
The frequency with which a person sees a view, the number of people who see it, and the length of time the view is seen, are significant. Examples: Occum Pond (highly populated area with intense use), dirt part of Reservoir Road (lengthy viewing time), Moose Mountain ridge (prominent feature seen from a large number of locations).


3. Integrity (natural and/or historic)
This category reflects the degree to which traditional patterns of land use and architectural forms are retained on the landscape. In New England, traditional land use patterns are found in the large numbers of open space acres, including woodlots, pastures and agricultural fields with widely separated building clusters. The integrity of an old building in its historic setting is an important connection with Hanover's past. Examples: First Baptist Church and Etna Commons, Dartmouth Cemetery, Cory Road stone bridge.


4. Presence of wildlife habitat or corridors
Value is placed on lands that serve as recognized wildlife corridors, and/or significant natural habitat. Examples: Ferson Road beaver pond, field between Greensboro Road and Mink Brook, Mink Brook at Route 10.


5. Proximity to public lands
Locales contiguous to publicly owned lands are given additional value. They buffer and enhance the adjacent land, create and maintain linkages between open spaces, and enlarge blocks of habitat for wildlife. Examples: Velvet Rocks (hillsides adjacent to the Appalachian Trail, which is owned by the federal government), Etna Cemetery (also adjacent to the Appalachian Trail), Oak Hill.

6. Observation point (to look from)
The objective here is to identify key places from which to view the landscape. Examples: Hanover Center looking east to the slopes and ridgeline of Moose Mountain, King Road/Robert Frost Lane, fields on Thompson Road.


7. Focal points (to look at)
Which locations on the landscape are particularly valued as places to look at? Examples: Moose Mountain ridge, Lords Hill, Goose Pond.


8. Uniqueness
One-of-a-kind sites or areas of particular value were given special ranking (20 points). Examples: Bottomless Pit Bog, Velvet Rocks, the Ruddsboro Road waterfall.


9. Vulnerability to compromise
Scenic areas which lie in the path of development pressure are vulnerable to compromise or loss. They are given extra value to raise their placement on the list of priorities. Examples: Mink Brook Corridor, Dogford Road open farm land.

The committee listed and evaluated a total of 76 sites and locales. Locations with the highest cumulative scores are listed in Table A-2. This is the committee's list of highest priority locations.

HILLTOPS AND RIDGES
Velvet Rocks
Moose Mountain

WATER BODIES
Mink Brook Corridor
Goose Pond
Ruddsboro Road Waterfall

ROADS
King Road/Robert Frost Lane

CULTURAL FEATURES
Hanover Center Green
Etna Farm at Ruddsboro Road
Dartmouth Green
First Baptist Church/Etna Commons
Town Library in Etna
Cory Road Stone Bridge

NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE
Hanover Water Company Land

COMMUNITY GATEWAYS AND/OR LANDSCAPE TRANSITIONS
Trescott Ascutney View

The Select Board invited members of the public to apply for appointment to the Scenic Locales Committee. Meetings were announced in the Valley News and by notices in the Municipal Building.

In March 1998 the committee elicited public opinion through large displays at the Etna and Howe Libraries, and at the Municipal Building, announced by a letter printed in the Forum section of the Valley News. For two weeks residents could place red pins into large maps of the town to indicate their favorite scenic locations. A questionnaire was provided for those wishing to give more input. Twelve questionnaires and hundreds of pins gave much information to the committee.

An almost identical survey was mailed to 1200 randomly selected Hanover households on March 12, with responses due in stamped return envelopes by April 1. Two hundred and twelve (212) surveys were returned (17+ %). Respondees were not limited in the number of locations they could cite in answering any of the survey questions.

Eventually Question #5 on the survey was found to be of limited or no relevance to the conclusions, and has thus been omitted from the final collation of responses. (See Appendix B, Question #5.) All responses to both surveys are on file in the Planning Board Library in the Municipal Building.

All but two surveys reflected positive reaction to the committee's efforts. Respondents identified dozens of locations. Almost every corner of the town was considered to be of scenic importance by someone. Valued places included in-town, near-town, and rural locations, historic sites, near and distant views, wetlands, highlands, open and forested lands.

In terms of the total number of "votes" received by particular places, however, the public survey results seemed to reflect the population distribution of the town, with in-town and near-town locations receiving much greater recognition than more rural or remote locations of great prominence and/or beauty. While there is an obvious logic to this conclusion, it may also reflect lack of awareness of those who live in or near the built-up part of Hanover of the full geographic extent of the town, and/or an assumption that the word "Hanover" as used in the survey refered to the developed "downtown" and nearby areas. However, the public survey certainly reflects past and present uses and circumstances. It is, in effect, a "popularity poll" of residents' favorite places in Hanover.

majority of surveys expressed concern for scenic protection. Judging by the overall distribution of sites, effective protection will necessitate a comprehensive approach.

Therefore, the committee chose to discharge its duty by presenting the high-priority locations within the context of the landscape as a whole, and the specific recommendations for the high-priority locations in the context of a whole-landscape vision for town action.

Altogether, almost 200 locations were mentioned by respondees to the public surveys. Tabulated data is located in the Scenic Locales file in the Planning Library in the Municipal Building.

Appendix B shows significant results of the public surveys. Table A-3 gives a summary of Appendix B by combining the number of times individual locations appeared in responses to Questions #1, 2, and 7. The committee views this list as the collective expression of the public's highest priorities.

LOCATIONS APPEARING IN RESPONSE TO...
ALL THREE QUESTIONS ANY TWO QUESTIONS ONE QUESTION
*Connecticut River Mink Brook *King Road
*Dartmouth Campus Storrs Pond *Hanover Center
*Balch Hill Pine Park
Occum Pond Golf Course
Moose Mountain
*Lyme Road
Oak Hill
* Also mentioned with greatest frequency
in response to Questions 3, 4, and 5.

As stated previously, the committee developed a comprehensive look at the whole town, ranking selected attributes of each location relative to other locations, while the public survey provided a poll of best-loved places. Table A-4 combines the lists of the highest- scoring places from both methods into a single alphabetical list.

While no provisions for protection and/or public use can be considered fail-safe forever, some scenic locations currently enjoy a higher level of protection than others. To the best of its ability, the Committee gathered information and expressed its opinions on the vulnerability to development and/or external impact of each high-ranking location on the public survey and the committee lists. (See Table A-5.)

In general, the more vulnerable a locale is, or becomes, the sooner protective measures should be considered. Thus the combination of high rank and high vulnerability create The High-Priority Action List for municipal consideration. (See Table A-6 and Map A- 1.)

HIGHEST VULNERABILITY TO COMPROMISE (reasons for vulnerability)
Etna Farm at Ruddsboro Road (private ownership, desirable location)
Goose Pond ("F" zone; impact of shoreline development in another town)
Hanover Center (desirable scenic location with long views; insufficiently protective zoning restrictions)
Hanover CC Golf Course (location; permissibility of "I" zone uses)
Hanover Water Company Land (current water supply issues; joint ownership; possibility of shoreline and hillside development)
King Road/Robert Frost Lane (roadside developable land, desirable location, distant views)
Mink Brook Corridor (developable land, desirable locations, many owners)
Moose Mountain ("F" zone; much vacant land with distant views)
Trescott Ascutney View (desirable location; distant views)



MODERATE VULNERABILITY (some protective measures in place)
Connecticut River (local, state and federal regulation; Sylvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge; Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan; Connecticut River Scenic Byways)
Dartmouth Green and Campus (symbol of the collge; alumnae and local opinion)
First Baptist Church and Etna Common (church ownership)
Lyme Road (some land under LCIP easements)
Oak Hill ("I" zone)
Occum Pond (protected by strong public opinion)
Velvet Rocks (top owned by US Government (Appalachian Trail))



LOWEST VULNERABILITY (adequate protective measures in place)
Balch Hill (land owned by Town of Hanover and the Hanover Conservation Council)
Pine Park (land owned by The Pine Park Association)
Storrs Pond (land owned by The Hanover Improvement Society)

(Available in print version of Scenic Locales Report)


APPENDIX B



Public Surveys -
Summary of Responses to Random Mailing
and Library/Town Hall Displays


PUBLIC SURVEYS -

Listed below are the responses in which 10% or more of the respondees (21 or more) agreed (Questions 1 - 3). For Questions 4-7, agreement among 10 or more responses are listed.


QUESTION #1
Imagine traveling around Hanover 20 years from now. What scenic places do you hope are still intact? Please identify them for us, citing the nearest road name and any distinguishing physical characteristic.

1. Mink Brook 51

2. Connecticut River 49

3. Storrs Pond 31

4. Dartmouth College 30

5. Balch Hill 30

6. King Road 28

7. Occum Pond 27

8. Hanover Center 24

9. Pine Park 25

10. Golf Course 23

11. Moose Mountain, Moose Mountain Road 23

12. Lyme Road views 22

13. Oak Hill 20


QUESTION #2
Name specific Hanover natural features you consider scenic.

1. Connecticut River (shoreline, trails, views) 90

2. Mink Brook (throughout town) 78

3. Velvet Rocks 32

4. Balch Hill 28

5. Occom Pond 27

6. Storrs Pond 23

7. Dartmouth College 22




QUESTION #3
Name specific Hanover historic scenes you consider important.

1. Dartmouth campus, Green, Baker Tower, etc. 152

2. Hanover Center 49

3. Main Street and downtown 46

4. Etna Village and surroundings 31

5. All cemeteries 23


QUESTION #4
Name your favorite long distance view in Hanover. Please identify your advantage point and the focal point of your selected view. In other words, "Viewed from _____, I cherish the view of ______."

VIEWED FROM... VIEW OF...
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Route 10 VT, Connecticut River valley 23

2. King Road Mountains, Hanover, Killington, Pico 19

3. Trescott Road Ascutney, Killington, fields, farm 15

4. Balch Hill VT, Connecticut River valley, Baker 13 Tower, Hanover



QUESTION #5
Identify the part of Hanover you most enjoy viewing from out-of-town. Please identify the focal point. In other words, "From ______ (road name, bridge name, etc.) in the Town of _______, I enjoy the view of _____."

From... The view of....
______________________________________________________________________________

(The Scenic Locales Committee gathered responses to this question, but at a later time decided that the question was tangential to the charge of the committee, and so have omitted the results from this collation.)




QUESTION #6
What is your TOP choice for a scenic Hanover place?

1. Dartmouth 23

2. Connecticut River 19

3. Balch Hill 18

4. Occom Pond 11

QUESTION #7
Again, imagine traveling around Hanover 20 years from now. Are there any scenic improvements you hope we would accomplish before then?

1. Keep open spaces and vistas; control development relative to 32
scenic impact

2. Walking trails, bike paths, conservation easements 20

3. No more development 15

4. Improve town entrances: Wheelock St., Routes 120, 10, I-91 11

SOURCE TECHNIQUE OR MATERIAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NH (STATE) Natural Heritage Inventory (DRED) - information about Bottomless Pit, endangered species and exemplary plant communities in Hanover

NH Office of State Technical Bulletin #10, "Preservation of Scenic Areas and Viewsheds" Planning (1993) - process and techniques - many suggestions

"Memo" containing information about the following:
Conway, NH - Mountain Conservation District - no building, only farming, forestry and recreation

Enfield,NH - Shaker Mountain Conservation District: defined by elevations: 900', 1100' (east), 1420', 1500' (west) - 10 acres residential

Jaffrey, NH - Mountain Zone Overlay district - to protect Mt. Monadnock - uses limited to rural residential and agriculture

Lyme, NH - Steep slope (20%) district - ridgeline and hillside conservation district (located within 1/2 mile and visible from public waters or roads)

Society for the "Open Space Protection Techniques" (description of options)
Protection of NH
Forests "Land: Loss of Open Space Tops the List of New Hampshire's Environmental Problems" - (from "Forest Notes")

Upper Valley "Open Space Lands: A Community Resource" (Natural Resource
Land Trust Inventory techniques, including landscape analysis)

"Natural Resources: An Inventory Guide for New Hampshire Communities (excerpts) - mapping and evaluating scenic resources

"Land Trusts Have Become A Crucial Part In Conservation"

Berlin Twp, NH Scenic corridors with setbacks of 200'



OTHER STATES AND TOWNS
NJ, MD, FLA, and Directing growth towards infrastructure, away from rural
some other states areas

Portola Valley,CA Design guidelines - with illustrations

Portola Valley,CA "Portola Valley General Plan" (1990+) - scenic corridor plan, etc.

Denver, CO Mountain View Ordinance

CT $160 million bond program to preserve 20,000 acres in 5 years

Kent, Conn. Citizen action to keep second-growth forest from overwhelming centuries-old open farmland to retain "middle landscape" - also local land trust

Georgia Real estate transfer tax to establish a $36 million conservation fund (proposed)

Maine Guidelines for subdividing and building in "wildlands" (2 volumes) - illustrated - (these belong to Anne Morris, and are available from the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission)

Maryland "Smart Growth Plan" - money for schools and roads in exchange for continued growth in designated areas

MA Land bank information (reference in Trust For Public Land publication)

Martha's Vineyard & Land bank 2% of each transaction ($31 million since 1986 Nantucket, MA collected for buying 110,000 acres)

Sudbury, MA Land bank fund - revolving, 1% registration fees for real estate transactions; also gifts, back taxes
Minnesota $140 million bond for parks, trails, recreation and open space in 2 years

NJ (STATE) "NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan" (excerpts) - state policies for historic, cultural, scenic resources

Green Acres Bond Program to provide matching funds to municipalities for open space protection

NJ Historic Trust Bond Program for stabilization, restoration and rehabilitation of public historic sites

Increase gas tax 2 cents/gal. to preserve 1/2 of NJ's 2 million undeveloped acres in the next 10 years (proposed)

Pinelands, NJ "Density Transfer: The Pinelands Experience" - transfer of development rights for density modification (Pinelands are about 25% of the total area of the state)

Bernardsville, NJ Municipal open space tax (2 to 3 cents per $100 assessed valuation) that could then be matched with county and state open space funding (proposed) - (one example of 53 towns in 13 counties matching state funding)

Chester Twp, NJ Historic preservation by overlay townwide

Clinton, NJ 5 cents/$100 assessed property value open space tax

Florence, NJ Historic district

Franklin Twp, NJ Scenic corridors: 200' setback from roadway - no built barriers blocking views

Medford Twp, NJ Forest and "reserve growth" zones with no-build conditions within 200' of scenic corridor

Mendham Twp., NJ Design standards for all development to protect scenic qualities

Somerset Cty, NJ "Somerset County Scenic Corridor and Roadway Study" - Scenic roads (recommendations only)

Lake Tahoe, NV Growth restrictions to protect lake (also scenic qualities?)

Ithaca, NY Described in Scenic America guide (see below)

Red Hook, NY "How to Keep 'em Down on the Farm" - sale of development rights to preserve agricultural land

Portland, OR Urban growth boundary established by zoning restructuring (since 1973)

Monroe County, PA $25 million to buy undeveloped land in 10 years

Austin, TX Increased water rates for $65 million to protect 15,000 acres "outside the city"

VT "Vermont's Scenic Landscapes: A Guide for Growth and Protection" (VT Agency of Natural Resources)

VT Information about designating scenic roads

VT "Keeping Track" program for identifying and monitoring wildlife habitat and travel corridors for municipal planning and protection

Mad River, VT Valley protection plan (scenic, historic resources)

Montpelier, VT Master Plan goals, with ridgeline and hillsides development emphasis

Norwich, VT "Special Places" program, in conjunction with Upper Valley Land Trust

Stowe, VT Ridgeline and hillside overlay zone

Woodstock, VT Scenic Ridgeline Districts - all land within 500 horizontal feet of primary ridgelines - map - excludes all land within 350' of Class I, II or III highways

Seattle, WA Anti-sprawl regulations - growth boundaries - 1994 20-year strategy



LOCAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL GROUPS
Upper Valley Land Expertise in land preservation throughout the Upper Valley in
Trust New Hampshire and Vermont

Society for the Statewide preservation program
Protection of NH
Forests

National Trust Historic Roads Task Force, landscape preservation program
for Historic
Preservation

Scenic America "Evaluating Scenic Resources" (Scenic America Technical Info series) (1996) - how-to guides for identifying and evaluating scenic resources

"Scenic Resource Protection Techniques and Tools" (in process of being updated) (1990)

"On The Value of Open Spaces" - fiscal and other benefits