Acquisition of Seabrook dunes final report to the Seabrook Conservation Commission

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

QH |applied l|
541.5 economic
. S26 research
A26
1984

....ent Consulting � Market Analysis � Regional Economics e Real Estate Appraisals
P.O. Box 1250 o Laconia, New Hampshire 03247 � Telephone 603/524-1484

U. S. ,EDARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENIIE
I >AAi5RTON , SC 29405-G- 4

ACQUISITION OF SEABROOK DUNES:
FINAL REPORT
TO THE
SEABROOK CONSERVATION COMMISSION

I f'f�PARTMENT OF COVc
-: SEFVICES CENTEF
| .. . i' 1 HiOBSON AVENUlr
SC 29405-24 1

This project was funded by the Department of Commerce,
NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
through the New Hampshire Office of State Planning.

%w #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~economic

I t fsn~iIe

U ~~~March 23, 1984

Mr. Stanley Hamel
Chairman
I ~ ~~Seabrook Conservation Commission
c/o Town Hall
Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874

H ~~~Dear Mr. Hamel:

I ~ ~~he revised Final Report enclosed herewith summarizes and concludes our
research and appraisal work relating to parcels located within the Seabrook
Dunes Area proposed for public acquisition.

The detailed ownership records researched by Donal Wilson have been trans-
mitted under separate cover for filing with the Town Administrator.

We have very much enjoyed working on this analysis, which we hope has
I ~ ~~enabled the Town to make an informed decision on the feasibility of acquir-
ing the Seabrook Dunes.

I ~ ~ ~~~~l submitted,

H ~~~Russell W. Thibeault
Principal

Development Consulting a Market Analysis *Regional Economics *Real Estate Appraisals
P.O. Box 1250 a Laconia, New Hampshire 03247 * Telephone 603/524-1484

I ~~~~~~~~~EXECUTIVE SUM4ARY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of public
acquisition of the Seabrook Dunes, an area comprising approximately 53
acres of undeveloped land west of 1111 Route 1-A at Seabrook Beach. The
elements of the study included a search of current zoning and ownership
boundaries, a determination of the fair market value of the Dunes area
property, the investigation of available funding sources to provide finan-
cial assistance to the Town in the acquisition, the preparation of an

informational brochure to acquaint the public with the importance of the
Seabrook Dunes and the need for preservation, as well as meetings with
I ~~specific property owners to discuss the need for the protection of the
Dunes and to inform them of the proposal for acquisition. A number of
* ~~these items have already been addressed in earlier interim reports to the
Seabrook Conservation Commission. It is the purpose of this report to
summarize the elements of the study, results of the valuation analysis, and
to outline a recommended acquisition strategy which addresses the unique
problems posed by the dynamic environment of the Dunes area and the some-

what clouded picture of surrounding ownership patterns.

It is the final recommendation of this report that the Town of Sea-
brook should opt for direct fee simple acquisition of properties involved,
based upon an estimated purchase price of $750,000 plus the costs of asso-
ciated legal fees. It is further recommended that in the case of a number
of the properties abutting the main parcel owned by Seabrook Beach Homes,
Inc., that specific boundary agreements be reached with adjoining property
owners to preclude future disagreements with regard to the limits of the

area acquired by the public.

~tudon Centel' Barnstea o Strafti ed ~ ~'

iPittsfield 'ansra

28 South ~ Mi' Straffard 202F111D~f] St- 3r
heste~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~srfo 4tsf

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a Corners

Northwoo Rsgo.3

M~~~~~~~~~~erjl Paradet

3~~~~~~~~~~l a Rida arin 1 i-n Prsot

N how __ D o s a in

n l i ~ ~ ~~ng.~ 3 0ngs

Le~~~~~~~~~~~ iAavilts Rye4rh.a

4hse 121Astw

EFdianUrob

2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Naro '6e0dr Newbuastl
ausn 3Path. CoilAt i2

rentFor 2 S t v arh3illie d

"3 j \aren of 3 4rtaal
~~~~~~~I nn arouglNic

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Conr2Ise
3~~~~~~~hse FIUR 1:an LOATO Of SARO

C~~~~~kn CMOHAMPTON

a~~~~~~~~~B ARi Ield

BECK N'r Ck~U

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pe Sr

Dock TOWN AN" d ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Thonpso.
557--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F~ ~ 0 . P I Ra~c0 r ~ k

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S

~~~ Ns~AR

B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~kn ECKMAMPN ST

sln STj LOWE ST....

1AT~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OER S r -

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 01NlTpp.Rc

FIGUR~~~~~~~~~~~ET 2:N NEGBOHO
SC HOOL XI., ENCE SOC TIO

Figure 3. Sketch of Subject Properties

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NP

kek~z_457.7

(", Ae.

~~ orVo
NOT TO SCALE
(SHADED AREAS NOT PART OF ACQUISITION)
'U~s
I ~5;4gp Li#~rsf

I~~~p~

\ X~~cclE~dcs ~)

LH~eCb dACI \4J~~44

NOTTO CA LE~I L11

I~~~~~~~II

I ~~~~~~~ACQUISITION STRATEGY AND FINAL REPORT
SEABROOK DUNES

The Seabrook Dunes Area to be acquired represents a total of approxi-
mately 53 acres held by eight owners.

I ~~~~The basic acquisition strategy has been evolving during the course of
this analysis. A significant portion of the strategy has already been
3 ~~accomplished. Some of the major points which have already been addressed
in the acquisition strategy are:

3 ~~~~~~A plan of the area to be acquired has been
developed by John Durgin Associated and enti-
tled "Plan of the Dunes in Seabrook Beach,

N1ew Hampshire;" it also shows current zoning.
The plan is dated December 1983 and copies of

I ~~~~~~this plan have been previously submitted to
the Commission.

Property ownership records have been researched
by Donald Wilson. (See Appendix A.)

The properties have been appraised. A report
("Seabrook Dunes Valuation Analysis, January
1984") has been submitted under separate cover
3 ~~~~~~detailing appraisal considerations and conclu-
sions. (Value conclusion in Appendix B.)

A brochure describing the Dunes, their signifi-
cance, and the rationale for acquiring the area
has been developed. (See Appendix C.)

The availability of federal and state resources

I ~ ~~~~~for financial assistance in acquiring the Sea-
brook Dunes has been researched. A brief oral
report was made to the Seabrook Conservation
Commission, and a written report (under sepa-
rate cover) has been forwarded to the Town.
(See Appendix D.)

I ~~~~~~Finally, property owners have been advised of
the proposal for acquisition and public discus-

sion with them has been held.

Assuming a favorable vote at Town Meeting, the acquisition process
will begin. Assuming an unfavorable vote at Town Meeting, the entire
acquisition process will grind to a halt, since there is no other source of
funds or other public sponsor capable of undertaking such a large acquisi-
tion.

I ~~~~~~~Steps to Be Taken Assuming Favorable Vote

* ~~~~Each of the property owners involved has been contacted by telephone
or mail. Whenever possible, meetings were held with the owners in person.
* ~~regarding additional work that would probably have to be accomplished prior
to actually closing a transaction. Also, where appropriate, we have indi-
* ~~cated the likelihood that the current owners would be willing to sell their
property.

I ~~Dondero/Seabrook Beach Homes, Inc.

We have toured this property with Mr. Dondero and spoken to him on
several occasions. He indicated that he is willing to sell and has a
* ~~preference to sell the entire parcel.

I ~~~The extent to which the Conservation Commission wants to get involved
in acquiring the land immediately south of Cross Beach Road within this

parcel has been the subject of considerable debate. The Commission has
I ~ ~concluded that because of possible adverse claims, and the confusion those
claims would generate at Town Meeting, it would be best to avoid acquiring
the northerly 250 feet (plus or minus) of the Dondero parcel. It would,
however, be advisable to acquire a 50 foot easement across these lands to
* ~~Cross Beach Road.

Mr. Dondero indicated that be would like to sell the entire parcel.
I ~ ~We have suggested to both the Commission and to Mr. Dondero that Mr. Don
dero donate this last portion of land through a Quit Claim Deed at the time
I ~ ~the Seabrook purchases the balance of his parcel. Our initial conver-
sations with Mr. Dondero indicate that he would prefer to be paid separate-
ly for this parcel at a future date. Consequently, if the Town is interes-
ted in having him donate this property, some negotiations and persuasion
would have to be accomplished at the time the Town purchases the balance of
his holdings.

U ~~~~Throughout this process, the Conservation Commission and the appraiser
have been assuming that Mr. Dondero has the authority to speak for the
I ~ ~entire Seabrook Beach Homes, Inc. corporation. Considering that Paul
Durgin and his office have worked with Mr. Dondero in the past, this
assumption is probably valid. Nonetheless, when it comes time to nego-
tiate, this should be verified more definitively by Town counsel.

There has also been considerable debate and confusion as to the wes-
terly boundary of this parcel. Paul Durgin and Donald Wilson both feel
that the boundary is the sand line as it existed in 1925. Town Counsel,
Gary Holmes has reviewed this issue and concurs with this view. (See

Appendix E.)

There are, however, known claims on portions of the Dondero tract
lying east of the 1925 sand line. For example, there is a recorded affi-
davit and a plan recorded as D-8750 (Plan Reference No 7) in which the
Himmer Realty Trust parcel claims an area of just under four acres on the
basis of an affidavit which is included as Appendix F in this analysis.
Vernon Small has indicated other property owners shown as owning property

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

west of the 1925 sand line may also have similar claims.

Gary Holmes has indicated that court action is the only way to confirm
a claim of adverse possession. In other words, the burden of proof is on
those individuals holding property west of the 1925 sand line to demon-
strate that they, in fact, own property on the sand dunes beyond that shown
in the Durgin plan of December 1983 and its predecessors.

H ~~Seabrook Beach Community, Inc.

I ~~~~Although this parcel is shown as not being owned by the Town and
although we have appraised it, it is conceivable that the property is, in
fact, owned by the Town of Seabrook. There is no indication in Town
records that property taxes are being paid on this parcel. Gary Holmes
should be contacted regarding the proper legal procedures to follow in
confirming that the Town, in fact, retains this property. Gary will pro-
bably want to discuss this issue with Donald Wilson and/or Paul Durgin
prior to reaching a conclusion. Since there was no property tax assessment
records of this parcel in the town files, there was no individual who could

serve as a contact point with regard to acquiring the parcel, and it was
therefore assumed to be owned by the Town.

Ulaky Parcel

This parcel consists of a 10,000 square foot parcel located on U.S.
* ~~Route I-A.

We contacted Christine Ulaky by telephone and she indicated that she
I ~ ~is about ready to begin to secure a building permit for this parcel. She
understood that it would be necessary to contact the Wetlands Board as well
I ~~as the local Building Inspector.

It is probably fair to say that Ms. Ulaky is willing to convey the
parcel to the Town, as long as she can be assured that she is receiving the
full fair market value for the parcel. The legal references to this parcel
are quite clear and there appears to be no confusion as to ownership. This

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

parcel is shown on the "Plan of the Dunes in Seabrook Beach" by Paul Durgin
I ~ ~as Lot #52 (K.

I ~~Dune Land West of the 1925 Sand Line

Work completed by Paul Durgin indicates that the actual sand line has
shifted westerly from its 1925 location. This means that the Dondero
Parcel no longer reaches all the way to the marsh. Instead, individuals
that once owned exclusively marsh land west of the 1925 sand line now own a
combination of marsh land and sand dunes. Because the Conservation Commis-

sion wants to acquire all the way to the marshes, it is necessary to
acquire relatively small portions of the abutting properties west of the

sand line.

As noted above, there is continuing debate as to the ownership of the
property at the junction of the dunes and the marshes. Owners of marsh
* ~~land have claims to portions of the property now covered by sand.

* ~~~~The nature of the takings in these cases will be partial takings.
However, in the case of the property owned by Nellie Wright, her son has
* ~~expressed a desire to have the entire parcel acquired.

The Conservation Commission should decide on a policy to avoid this
problem in the future. If the Commission acquires up to the current sand
line, what will happen if that sand line shifts further to the west in the
* ~~future? Presumably if the acquisition is referenced to the current sand
line, a situation would develop in which the Commission would no longer
have title all the way to the marsh land. A careful def inition of the
parcels acquired will be necessary to definitively establish the current
sand line and a careful deed description will be necessary to definitively

delineate the relationship between the current area of acquisition and
future ownership in the event (which appears likely) that the sand line
I ~~continues to shift. The most expedient approach may be to seek specific
boundary agreements with each abutting marsh land owner stipulating their
* ~~concurrence as to the current boundary definition.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6

Results of M etig with Property Owners

Fairly early in the course of this study, the Seabrook Beach Homes,
Inc. parcel, which is the major property involved in the acquisition, was
toured with Mr. Dondero, representing the owners. At this time, be had
indicated an interest in selling the entire property. A subsequent meeting
was held for all involved property owners on Thursday, January 26, 1984 at

the Town of Seabrook offices. The following property owners were contacted
by telephone, where possible, and by certified mail if they could not be
reached by telephone, relative to the acquisition proposal:

John Dondero representing Seabrook Beach Homes, Inc.
Christine Ulaky
Himmier Realty Trust

3 ~~~~~~Theresa C. Hughes
Ralph L. and Nellie M. Wright
Vernon Small (thought to be the present owner of land
shown as now or formerly of Jacob F. & Charles E. Dow.)

All of these property owners were informed of the proposal for acqui-

sition by the Town of Seabrook, the estimated value of the parcels concer-

ned, and discussion was entertained regarding the intent of public acquisi-

tion of the Seabrook Dunes and its rationale. Of those listed above,
Dondero, Ulaky, Small and Hughes were represented at the January 26 meet-
ing. In all cases of contacts with property owners concerned, there has
been no negative reaction with regard to the general proposal for acquisi-

tion of the Seabrook Dunes.

In attendance at the January 26th meeting was Bruce Brown, a long-time
Seabrook resident who offered the following information for the considera-
tion of the consultant and the Committee with regard to current ownership
in the Dunes area. Mr. Brown was reviewing a copy of the plan of the Dunes

at Seabrook Beach and offered the following information regarding his
* ~~~opinion as to the current ownership of a number of the parcels shown on the
map. A number of these parcels are not proposed for acquisition, however,

they may be subject to future boundary agreements being sought by the Town
I ~ ~if the overall Dunes acquisition project goes forward. Mr. Brown offered
the following information which he believes to be true:

That the parcel shown as owned by Wallace Sanborn is
now owned by Adna Sanborn.

The residence of Carrie C. Robinson is Newburyport,
Massachusetts.

I ~~~~~The parcel. shown to be owned by Ruth Ann Dow (who is
also known as Ruth Ann Short) is now owned by the Town

of Seabrook.

* ~~~~~The parcel shown as owned by Elizabeth Knapp Chase is
now owned by Malcolm and Jerry Chase.

The parcel shown as owned by Jacob and Charles Dow may
now be owned by Bill Dow.

The parcel shown as owned by Charles D. Foote, Joshua
Eaton and Julia A. Bragg could be referenced in
the deed records at Volume 1466, Page 84 as heir Ralph
D. Eaton (heirs of Emory Eaton) and Vernon Small.

The parcel shown as owned by now or formerly the heirs
of Walter Colson is owned by Annie Humphrey of
* ~~~~~Salisbury.

The parcel shown as now or formerly of Jeremiah M.
I ~ ~~~~Haley was owned by Anna Adams and perhaps by Bessie
Hamel.

* ~~~~These observations should be taken into account pending further legal
research which will be required in the course of the Seabrook Dunes acqui-

sition.

In summary, the results of meetings with the property owners have been
very positive to date. The major problems which may be encountered would
appear to be those of defining the boundary in the vicinity of the sand
line, the solution of adverse claims if the entire Dondero parcel is to be
acquired, and the negotiation of a final price with each of the landowners.
The landowners thus far have not expressed a negative reaction to the
values of properties identified.

Summary

The appraisal of the Seabrook Dunes area and the preparation of an
acquisition strategy represent a significant exercise in the resolution of
uncertainties. In the course of the study, we have have attempted to
maintain a rational view of the probability of continuing development of
these parcels in the context of the current local and state regulatory
framework. It has been necessary to make careful assumptions based upon
the extent of local and state permissiveness with regard to the most proba-
ble highest and best use of these lands.

The possibility of the acquisition of the Seabrook Dunes represents a
significant opportunity for the Town to make a lasting contribution to its
citizens and to the State of New Hampshire in preserving the last remaining
natural dune formation in the State. It is very likely that without local
action to preserve the Dunes, the area will continue to be exposed to
damage by unrestricted access and will continue to face the increased
likelihood of further real estate development. The Town now faces the
challenge of proposing this acquisition project in competition with a
number of other capital-intensive budget items. This may be a significant
test of the importance of preservation as a priority to the local communi-
ty.

It has been the intent of this report to maintain an open dialogue
among the consultant, the Seabrook Conservation Commission, the Town Admi-
nistrator and the property owners who may be involved in the acquisition

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9

I
process. Given this information, in combination with the rationale sugges-
I ted in the brochure to be distributed to Seabrook citizens, the Town should
be prepared to make an informed decision on the question of acquiring the
Seabrook Dunes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10

I__ _ _
APPENDIX A
I ~~~~~~~~~~OWNERSHI P RESEARCH

I ~~~~~~~~Note: Copy of deeds and chain of
title research on file with
I ~~~~~~~~~~the Seabrook Town Administrator.

RESEARCH
RETRACEMENT
DONALD A. WILSON DOCUMENTATION
-~ ~Q.. -~ _& LAND BOUNDARY CONSULTANT
R.F.O., LAMPREY ROAD
EAST KINGSTON, N. H. 03827
REGIeTEREo LAND SURVEYOR 6133,772r5009
REiBITEREO PROFESSIONAL FoRESTER

December 22, 1983

Mr. Russell W. Thibeault
Applied Economic Research
Post Office BOx 1250
Laconia, NH 03246

Dear Russ:

Enclosed please find a summary of the work I performed with regards
to the Seabrook Conservation Commission's proposed purchase of "The
Dunes" at Seabrook Beach. With that, you will find my conclusions
relative to title problems and issues that need to be addressed at
some future time if purchase is undertaken.

Also included herein are copies of deeds you requested regarding
certain parcels of land within or abutting the "Dunes" area; and
pertinent deeds in the chain of title to the main tract owned by
Seabrook Beach Homes, Inc.

I have enjoyed being associated with you on this project and hope
we have the opportunity to work together again some time. If I
can be of further assistance on this project, or any other, please
don't hesitate to contact me.

.....Sicerely yours,

Donald A. Wilson

"Half-measures always result in loss of time and money"
Napoleon Bonaparte - 1807

WORK ACCOMVPLISHfED

1. Review of materials in files of John W. Durgin Associates and
Land and Boundary Consultants, Inc. Since both firms had
undertaken considerable surveying, research and title work,
respectively, in the area, extensive examination was made of
deeds, plans and other docum nts contained in several existing
files.

2. Land records research at the Rockingham County Registries of
Deeds and Probate.

I ~~~~as chain of title of subject, or main parcel, owned
by Seabrook Beach Homes, Inc. This title was traced
to 1901 and examination made of existing information
I ~~~~~regarding the extension of the title back to 1867.
b. chains of title, and determination of, abutting marsh
tracts - 19 land parcels. This was done for two
reasons: 1) to determine if any of the descriptions
included any part of the dune area, and 2) to have
knowledge of the location, boundaries and ownership
I ~~~~~of all the abutting parcels in case ground inspection
and/or survey indicated that part of the dune area
existed on top of any of these parcels.
co determination and present ownership of all lots sold
out of the dune area, or the chain of title to the
subject parcel since the first development plans were
designed - 11 parcels.
d. examination of parcels defining boundaries imposed by
the Seabrook Conservation Commission - 2 parcels, i.e.,
"~BP Station" owned by Seabrook Beach Petroleum Products,
Inc. (southerly extent of area of interest) and Dockham/
Chase Estates (northerly extent of area of interest).

3. Meetings with Seabrook Conservation Commission (4p meetings) and
coordination with other members of the team (several meetings
I ~~~and discussions).

4. Two meetings with town counsel Gary W. Holmes to discuss legal
I ~~~implications concerning possible title problems with certain
sections of the subject parcel, or area of interest.

CONCLUSIONS and UJNRESOLVED ISSUES

I ~1. The chain of title seems to be straightforward and contains
several lots excepted, all of which are depicted on the research
sketch and the plan prepared by Dlurgin Associates. Examination
of indexes was made to determine if other sales had been made
from the chain of title, particularly concerning those apparent
encroachments and "squatters." None were found of record in
addition to those shown on the aforementioned plans.

2. The descriptions to the marsh tracts are general and somewhat
vague. Not all of the title chains have been compiled to date
because of the extensive nature of the research involved.
Several of the owners lived in Massachusetts and therefore
I ~~~Massachusetts probates will have to be examined in order to
determine present owners of several of these parcels. A few
will involve extensive record examination and dealing with
unrecorded documents, which will involve more time than routine
examinations.

I 3. ~While it does not appear that any other parcels have been sold
from the subject chain of title other than those depicted, the
great number of transfers made by several of the owners in the
chain of title make it impossible to be 100 percent positive
without further checking of the work and reviewing it at least
one more time. While we can be relatively sure that we have
uncovered all of the pertinent information, we cannot be entirely
sure.
Tax records have not been examined at the Town of Seabrook, which,
if done, would provide somewhat of a check on the thoroughness of
the examination. In addition, present ownership of two parcels,
labelled D and E on the Durgin plan, are not positive. One was
taken by the Town of Seabrook for non-payment of taxes and it is
not known if the town has since disposed of it; and the other was
sold back into the chain of title to Seabrook Beach Community, Inc.
at the time it owned the area of interest, and the specific parcel
I ~~~is excepted out of the subsequent transfers as it was in the
previous transfers. Consequently, the present status of ownership
of these two tracts is not positive.

4. The abutting parcels to the north and south both have problems
associated with them. The southerly parcel claimed by Seabrook
I ~~Beach Petroleum Products, Inc. shown on two plans of record
seems to include land not covered by the deed. The title to this
parcel, or claim, is not of concern, but its resulting boundary is.
A suggestion is to utilize the boundary as shown on the recorded

plans for convenience only in determining the southerly extent
of the area of interest.

The northerly abutting parcel was surveyed and a plan recorded
depicting a proposed line of agreement somewhat inside of the
dune limit, or southerly of the dividing line between sand and
marsh. No formal records were found consummating such an agree-
ment, so it appears that the dune line is still the correct
boundary even though another line may be understood by others
to be the boundary. For convenience, this proposed line could
be accepted and finalized by the present owners of the tracts
involved.

Several encroachments were uncovered in the process of study.
An affidavit filed by Abbie Dow forms the basis of a claim by
Himmer Realty Trust shown on a survey plan by Town Planning
and Engineering Associates, Inc. No other basis of title was
found to land easterly of the 1925 sand line, in fact, a previous
owner in the chain of title to one of the three lots comprising
the Himmer ownership quit-claimed, by deed, all interest to any
land easterly of the sand line.

In addition, it was pointed out by the Commission, and subsequently
confirmed in the inspection and survey by Durgin Associates, that
several structures are present on the subject area. No basis of
any title was found in the records with regards to these areas.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

H ~e s p~e 9~ Xy,,submltted,

L-nd Au W1suo l
Land 'Bound-ary'-U'nsu t ant

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX B
VALUE CONCLUSIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SUMMARY VALUE CONCLUSIONS

Value Range
Low High

Dondero/Seabrook Beach 50� Acres $600,000 $650,000
Homes, Inc.

Seabrook Beach Community, Inc. 5,000 s.f. $ 27,000 $ 33,000

Ulaky 10,000 s.f. $ 30,000 $ 34,000

Made Land:

N/F Himmer, Hughes, Dow
Wright, Chase 2.36 Acres $ 30,000 $ 33,000

52.70 Acres $687,000 $750,000

- - _ I I - m I - ---

OPINION OF VALUE, "MADE LAND" WEST
OF 1925 DUNES

Approximate Value per Acre Total Value
Owner on Plan Area Low High Low High

Himmer .35 Acres $10,500 $13,000 $ 8,700 $ 9,500

Hughes 1.00 Acres $10,500 $13,000 $10,500 $10,500

Dow 0.60 Acres $10,500 $13,000 $ 6,300 $ 7,800

Wright 0.35 Acres $10,500 $13,000 $ 3,700 $ 4,500

Chase 0.06 Acres $10,500 $13,000 $ 600 $ 800

Total 2.36 Acres $29,800 $33,100

Rounded to: $30,000 $33,000

1/See "Plan of The Dunes in Seabrook Beach"
prepared by John Durgin, Inc. dated
December 1983.

2/Includes $5,000 for erecting foundations.

I
I ~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX C
PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURE
I

OLU
~~kkkkkkkkO

(f)roo Cosrain7omsinukRt

Seabrook, CNsewrvampshiremm0ss7o Bulk Hamphie

Permit No. 3

A SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM YOUR
CONSERVATION COMMISSION: VOTE YES
TO ACQUIRE THE SEABROOK DUNES.

-o O
Cl) ..-~~(
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

What Are The "Dunes?" But Aren't The Dunes Protected By Legislation? What Are The Property Tax Impacts?

The Dunes comprise an area of about 53 acres of Not entirely. The current local zoning ordinance The Town has the means to buy the property
undeveloped land west of Route 1A at Seabrook for this area places most of the dunes within a outright this year at a fair price without tying up
Beach. For years, the citizens of Seabrook have residential zone; a very small portion of the area is additional costs of future debt. Based on the 1983
enjoyed this unique natural resource: it has been within a Conservation Zone which prohibits de- assessed valuation, we anticipate that a one-time
a place to explore, to play, to pick beach plums and velopment. Under new legislation, the State Wet- charge of about $.40 on the tax rate, would raise
bittersweet. Yet as with many scenic areas, we lands Board was given jurisdiction to review con- the $750,000 needed to finance the purchase. For
don't appreciate their real value until they are struction, dredge or fill activities proposed on any the owner of a $50,000 home, that's a cost of $20,
gone. With the rapid growth of our town and its dune in the Town of Seabrook. This process one time, to buy and preserve the dunes properties.
easy access to travelers, there are high pressures regulates, but does not necessarily prevent
for more land development. Without direct actions development. In fact, most Wetlands Board per-
to protect this area we may face the loss of the only mits issued within Seabrook on dune and tidal land
natural dune formation in the State of New have been issuedonlyaftertheviolationhadbeen
Hampshire. reported and construction had begun. Despite theth The Dunes After
legislation, development of the dunes continues,
and the area remains vulnerable to irreparable
tharm fr om uncontrolled vehicular access. Only The primary purpose of the acquisition is to prevent
harm from uncontrolled vehicular access. Only
public ownership can properly moderate public future public access. The Conservation ommis-
Why Are The Dunes So Important? access. sion envisions the Dunes as a passive recreation
and education area without intensive recreational
The Seabrook dune system provides a natural development.
protective buffer from the destructive force of Are There Economic Reasons To Protect
severe storms; it represents a unique scenic and Th Dunes?
recreational resource for the town and for the
State of New Hampshire; it is the habitat for a Yes. Acquisition makes economic sense for both
number of rare and endangered plant species; and businesses and residents of Seabrook. Continued What's The Next Step?
it serves as an important bird nesting area and a development and uncontrolled use would lead to
feeding ground for some migratory birds. This loss of the scenic beauty and to the disturbance of The Town of Seabrook has already taken action to
resource will be lost if development continues and the natural process of land formation to which the preserve the beach front area through public
the area remains open to uncontrolled vehicular beach area owes it existence and economic liveli- ownership. The next step toward preservation of
access. hood. The secondary and back dune areas protect this valuable coastal resource is to VOTE YES to
the productive bay, estuary, and harbor areas from acquire the Dunes at Town Meeting on Thursday,
the full force of sea and storm. Public acquisition March 15 at 7:00 p.m. at the Fire Station.. Let's not
and the possible creation of a natural area pre- tell our children and grandchildren about where
How Are The Dunes Threatened? serve in an otherwise developed area will increase the Dunes used to be; let's walk there with them.
surrounding property values by decreasing the
The limited supply of coastal property and its great supply of developable land. In addition, a properly
popularity leads to a constanttension between the managed natural area can provide a valuable
need for open space and the desire for housing educational and recreational asset.
development. Continued construction, removal of SEABROOK CONSERVATION COMMISSION
sand and the uprooting of plants by vehicles all are
contributing toward destruction of this important Stanley A. Hamel, Chairman
resource. When vegetation is destroyed, or dunes Jacqueline A. Fushpanski
excavated, the sand becomes vulnerable to ero- Gertrude B. Humphrey
sion; consequently significant portions may be VOTE YES FOR ACQUISITION Timothy F. Willis
washed or blown away. Annabelle Boyd

I
I ~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX D
FUNDING SOURCES
I

I
I ~~~~~~~~~~~SEABROOK DUNES:
SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION
I

3 ~~~~~SEABROOK: SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION

The following groups and agencies were contacted regarding the
availability of funding for open space acquisition:

Office of State Planning
Department of Resources & Economic Development
I ~ ~~~~~~Division of Parks & Recreation
(Office of Recreation Services)
Division of Forests & Lands
Fish and Game Department
Society for the Protection of NH Forests
Audubon Society
NH Municipal Association

3 ~~~~~~~Land and Water Conservation Fund

Based upon our contacts with the various agencies and groups listed
above, we believe that the most appropriate source of federal or state
funds for land acquisition at the Seabrook Dunes area would be the Land and
Water Conservation Fund administered through the Office of Recreation
Services, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Resources and
I ~ ~Economic Development. Land acquired under the program can be used for
either passive or active recreation. The fund provides a 50 percent match
toward the overall cost of acquisition or improvements. The local match
may be arranged in a number of ways including landowner contributions. To
help spread the funds around the state, a limit of $50,000 in federal funds
is applied toward any one sponsor community. Additional funds might be
3 ~~available in future years for a recreational development project.

The Division of Parks and Recreation appears to be very interested in
supporting the local acquisition and management of the Dunes area. Past
proposals involving the Dunes acquisition were rated very highly and, in
fact, were at the top of the list for potential funding. The State scoring
system for Land and Water Conservation Fund proposals contain some 25
different scoring categories which are best described as a system which
generally tends to favor projects which will: (1) serve areas of larger and
more rapidly growing population in those communities which have relative
economic need; projects which are consistent with local and regional plan
I ~ ~ning and which have strong community support; and (3) those which protect
critical, natural and cultural resources especially those offering excep-
tional merit or unique opportunities for acquisition and development. The
I ~ ~attached project evaluation sheet summarizes the current project selection
criteria used in the State of New Hampshire for selection of LWCF propo-
sals. Given the importance of the Dunes area and what seems to be an
accepted statewide significance based upon contacts with the above agencies
I ~ ~and groups, a proposal for LWCF funding of an acquisition project for the
Dunes, were it to be pursued by the Town of Seabrook, would be very favor-
ably received.

The Director of the Office of Recreation Services in the Division of
Parks and Recreation is Mr. Joseph Quinn. He is available at 271-3627 or
through the NH- Department of Resources and Economic Development, P.O. Box
856, Concord, NH 03301. It is important that the Town make early contact
with the Department should it anticipate using LWCF funds for acquisition
I ~ ~of the Dunes. Acquisitions undertaken with this fund are subject to the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of
1970. As such, very meticulous appraisal practices specific to recreation-
I ~ ~al acquisition projects are based upon these regulations and subsequent
interpretations are required prior to any acquisition. The next eligibili-
ty period for receipt of applications will be sometime in the Spring of
1984. The Town might consider placing a warrant article before Town Meet-
ing to appropriate the 50 percent of total costs required under the program
in order to be prepared for the application process.

I ~~~The Chief Executive Off icer of the municipality should notify the
Commissioner of DRED that it will be requesting assistance. The submission
of a narrative description, a cost breakdown, location map of the project
I ~ ~site, a site plan, an environmental assessment statement, and dated proper-
ty boundary maps of the area must be submitted to trigger several responses
from the Department of Resources and Economic Development. They will first
determine and acknowledge the eligibility of the project from the Commis-
I ~ ~sioner's Office; the Department will initiate an A-95 Review; and histori-
cal and archaeological review will then also be requested by the State
Historic Preservation Office. The Town would then contact the Recreation
I ~ ~Services Offices for an on-site inspection of the project area, and would
subsequently meet with the Town to outline the specifics of the forms,
certifications, and statements of assurance which must be submitted to the
Department. The lead time for all of the above activities is approximately
four months' time from the initial notification given to DRED to the esti-
mated time of project approval itself.

I ~~~~~~~~~Pittman Robertson Fund

This fund is administered by the State Fish & Game Department and
I ~ ~funds a program which provides for State acquisition of lands which are to
be open to such activities as hunting, fishing and trapping. The State
undertakes a "biological reconnaissance" and develops a management plan for
lands which are acquired. The primary emphasis of the program is on the
protection of wildlife habitats. Approximately $200,000 per year are made
available under the program; most inquiries towards land acquisition pro-
* ~~jects are initiated with a letter of interest to the Department.

No additional funds will be available until October of 1984. There
have been a number of coastal land donations in the vicinity of Seabrook
I ~ ~which are to be acquired under the program. Lands acquired under the pro-
gram must be open for public use and no development is permitted on lands
acquired. No funds are immediately available under the program and the
Seabrook Dunes acquisition would probably be only marginally acceptable,
if at all, under the terms of the Fund.
* ~~~~~~~Society for the Protection of NH Forests

While the Society has no funding program for the acquisition of open
space, it can function as a development rights bank or as a recipient of
txdeductible donations of open space development rights, etc.

3 ~~~~~~~~~Legislative Appropriation

Although this source is an unlikely one, there might be suff icient
State interest in the unique aspects of the Dunes area that it could be
I ~ ~seen as a viable State-supported project to insure the preservation of the
Dunes with or without State management of the property. The State's action
in amending the wetlands law to bring the Dunes area within the jurisdic-
I ~ ~tion of the Wetlands Board in the case of construction, dredge and f ill
operations is evidence of a perceived Statewide significance. In addition,
nearly every State agency that we spoke with and private groups that we
contacted expressed an interest in the preservation of the Dunes area.
However, the State budget remains tight and Seabrook is perceived as a
property-tax rich community which could support local acquisition.

* ~~~~~~~~~Natural Areas Committee

A consortium of interests comprising the Office of State Planning,
I ~ ~DRED, Fish and Game, Audubon Society, Association of Conservation Commis--
sions and other groups has discussed the Seabrook Dunes as among the natu-
ral areas of priority concern to the State, which is further evidence of
the public interest in the Dunes acquisition and preservation. However, no
I ~ ~specific sources of funding are available from this affiliation of conser-
vation groups.

3 ~~~~~~~Private Donations and Contributions

A number of non-profit and for profit corporations which might be
contacted for financial assistance in the Dunes acquisition. Frequently,
private corporations can be persuaded of the merits of contributions to
public projects with respect to improved public relations. In the case of
the Seabrook Dunes as an environmental conservation project, sponsors might
I ~~be sought who are interested in improving their public image, as
it relates to environmental protection. In addition, the possible support
of such non-profit groups and foundations such as the NI- Charitable Fund,
I ~ ~the Society for the Protection of NH Forests, the Audubon Society and
others might offer some form of limited financial assistance. The major
advantage however of even a small level of fi nancial or organizational
support from environmental and conservation groups could be important to
estabish the significance of 'Land acquisition of the Dunes area. Even
verbal endorsements supporting acquisition by the Conservation Commission
would make a more solid case for the need for a cquisition and proper
maaemn of this resource area.

Summary

I ~~~Based upon these contacts, it appears that the Land & Water Conserva-
tion Fund is the only immediately viable source of financial assistance.
Unfortunately, the maximum State grant under the program would fund less
I ~ ~than 10 percent of the total estimated value of the properties to be
acquired. The Land and Water Conservation Fund does provide, unlike other
sources, funding for natural area preserves which are open to the public
I ~ ~but which limit active recreational uses in order to protect the site's
natural features.

There is sufficient State interest to indicate that the Dunes acquisi-
tion project would score very highly in competition with other LWCF propo-
sals. In addition, it appears that several State agencies would also be
interested in assisting with the development of a management plan for the
* ~~Dunes area.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Grant Round III (Ending May 27, 1983)

Grant Round Application Conditions and Procedures:

i1. Basis for project selection and funding approval:

a) All completed applications received by May 27, 1983 will be reviewed
by state staff, using revised criteria sheet dated April 8, 1983.

b) Applications will be ranked in order of total points awarded, from
the highest to the lowest.

c) To assure adequate geographic distribution, the highest ranked appli-
cation from each of the existing seven planning regions, including
regions 5a, 5b, 5c separately, for a total of nine projects, will
be the first selected for funding. Any such project selected must
meet certain minimum criteria of merit as established by the staff.

d) Subsequent projects will be selected solely on the basis of total
points, in descending order, to the limit of federal funds.

e) All projects will be site inspected by state staff, and meetings
with sponsor representatives as appropriate will take place at that
time, before projects are ranked.

f) The cost figures used in land acquisition projects may be based upon
estimates or opinions of value, rather than a full appraisal. The
estimated figure will be the one used in the project application.

g) Project ranking by state staff will be accomplished as soon as
possible after May 27, 1983. Recommendations will then be forwarded
to the Open Project Selection Panel, and then to the Commissioner
for final funding authorization.

h) Successful candidate project sponsors will then be notified, and
final processing to the federal agency will be undertaken.

2. All project applications are restricted to new acquisition or develop-
ment work that will not start until the Grant Round III project selection
process has been completed and the federal agency has granted funding
approval. This applies both to new projects and amendments to existing
projects.

3. An upper limit of $50,000 in federal Land and Water Conservation Funds
will apply to any and all projects from the same sponsor (community).

4. A sponsor may submit more than one project application, but must indi-
cate which has a higher priority. In no case will federal funds in ex-
cess of $50,000 be awarded to any project sponsor.

5. It is critical that the project application contain as much information
as possible in response to the criteria sheet questions. Describe and
explain your answers to each question. For example, if you have a con-
servation commission, list the name of the chairman; for criterion #20
give a brief but complete explanation of citizen involvement by group
and activity.

6. For information about the availability of community plans, regional
plans, recreation/open space plans or other comprehensive planning
material contact your regional planning commission.

7. In certain instances standards will be applied (criterion #'7). Please
tell us how much of what would propose A1ra;ldy exists in the community.
(number of ballfields, tennis courts, acres of natural open space, etc.).
WTe are enclosing a facility inventory sheet. Please update it for those
facilities for which you are making this [.WCF project application.

8. Sponsor will provide information for criteria 8 through 17 and 19 through
23 only. Information is on hand at the State for criteria 1-7 and 18.
Criteria 24 and 25 wll be based on all information available to the staff.

4/19/83

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Department of Resources and Economic Development
and the Office of State Planning
Land and Water Conservation Fund

PROJECT EVALUATION

Project Sponsor: Project Title:

Date Evaluated: Evaluated By:

Points Points
Given Possible Project Selection Criteria Notes
(1-5) 1. Community population in which project is located.
(0-3) 2. Community population increase, by number of
persons.
_ (0-3) 3. Community population rate of increase.

_ (1-5) 4. Community median family income.

(1-5) 5. Community equalized per capita property valuation.

(1-5) 6. Prior use of LWCF by applicant per capita.
(0-5) 7. Project consistent with needs identified in
the state's outdoor recreation plan.

(0-5) 8. Project satisfies demand shown by local/regional
planning; has documented community support;
consistent with local priorities.

(0-5) 9. Project helps protect critical natural or cultural
resource.
(0-3) 10. Project provides for new, rehabilitated, or ex-
panded water access.

(0-3) 11. Project increases accessibility to facilities
by providing for handicapped.
(0-5) 12. Improves or expands existing facility, including
land acquisition and support facilities.

(0-5) 13. Project has potential for high recreational use.
(0-3) 14. Project site has year-round use.
(0-3) 15. Project site will have joint school/community use
and management.

(y/n3) 16. Only non-federal (except revenue sharing) money
used as local match.
(1-3) 17. Existing recreation facilities well maintained.

(0-5) 18. Recreation and conservation operation and main-
tenance budget as a % of total community budget.

(y/n3) 19. Community participates in public or private
recreation programs for the aged, handicapped
population, or other special populations.
(0-4) 20. Broad citizen involvement including volunteers
in community recreation and conservation
activities.

(0-3) 21. Community has a paid full-tine, part-time or
summer recreation program staff.
(Y/N 1/2) 22. Community has a conservation commission.

(Y/N 1/2) 23. Community has a recreation/park commission.
(1-3) 24. Presentation of proposal.
(0-9) 25. Exceptional merit/opportunity of proposal.

(6-100) TOTAl

Note: A y/n means the question can be answered with either a "yes" or "no". Yes gets the
assigned points. No gets zero. All other questions are assigned points within the
ranges given.

.HC'SP 4/19/83

PROJECT CRITERIA PRIMER

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Grant Round III

The purpose of this information is to inform the project sponsor of
the basis for each numerical criterion and how it will be applied.

#1 - Community population in which project is located. To be answered
by the state staff. Basis will be the 1981 Population Estimates
of the Office of State Planning.

# Points Community Population Range

1 Below 2,900
2 2,900 to 5,799
3 5,800 to 13,999
4 14,000 to 29,999
5 over 30,000

#2 - Community population increase, by number of persons.

To be answered by state staff. Basis will be the Office of State
Planning Population Estimates for the period 1970-1981 inclusive.

Points Population increase by number of persons

0 Zero or minus population growth
1 1 to 999
2 1,000 to 2,799
3 2,800 or more

#3 - Community population rate of increase.

To be answered by state staff. Rate, in percent, of population growth.
Basis will be Office of State Planning Population Estimates for the
period 1970-1981.

# Points Percent population increase

0 Zero or minus rate of growth
1 0.1 to 31.5
2 31.6 to 58.5
3 58.6 and above

#4 - Community median family income.

To be determined by state staff. Basis will be census data from
the Office of State Planning (1979 Figures).

# Points Family income range

1 $21,349 and over
2 $18,959 to $21,348
3 $17,189 to $18,958
4 $15,643 to $17,188
5 $15,642 or less

#5 - Community equalized per capita property valuation.

To be determined by state staff. Source of data is the N.H.
Department of Revenue Administration.

# Points Equalized property valuation range

1 over $40,470
2 $29,905 to $40,470
3 $24,203 to $29,904
4 $19,660 to $24,202
5 Less than $19,660

4/L9/83

.. - -~~~~~~~~~~2-

//6 - Prior use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund by the applicant
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~per capita -from program records of the Recreation Services Office,
I thru 5 -five points for first time use by project sponsor.

(/7 - Project consistent with needs identified in the state outdoor
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~recreation plan.
To be determined by state staff. Determined by standards,
priorities, other needs measures as related to the plan. The
higher the consistency with the plan, the higher the number of
points. Factors already considered in some other question (such
as population) won't be considered again.

(/8 -Project satisfies demand shown by local/regional planning; has
documented community support; consistent with local priorities.
It is suggested you contact your regional planning commission.

To be determined by state staff. Sponsor should provide evidence
of project in local or regional comprehensive or recreation plans,
Town meeting/city council actions, formal community-wide or
neighborhood planning and support. Level of planning documen-
tation and community support that can be shown will determine
point level.
I (/~~~~~~~~~9 -Project helps protect critical natural or cultural resource.

Critical nature of resource as determined by following criteria
and measures: (culItural resources are those man-made resources
that may have historiclarcheological values).
O - does not apply
I - no outstanding natural or critical resources
Points 2 - 5 determined by staff considerating factors such as:
identifiable feature such as wetland, height of land; identified
in local histories or planning documents; of state significance,
as identified in New England Natural Areas Project inventory or
equivalent; eligible for inclusion in National Natural or National
Historic registers.
(/10 -Project provides for new, rehabilitated, or expanded water access.

Points determined upon the following:

O - does not apply
I - project provides availability to water (no access development)
2 - rehab/expand existing water access facilities
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~3 - project provides new facilities for direct access and use of water
(Ill - Project increase accessibility to facilities by providing for
handicapped. Note: All projects must be in compliance with
federal and state regulations.
Points 0-3 to be determined by tile staff based on the project
proposal and an site inspection.

(/12 - Project improves or expands existing facility, including land
acquisition and support facilities.

Points will be awarded on the following basis as determined by
state staff analysis of application:

O - a brand new site (not facility)
I - support facilities only
2 - 5 degree of "net gain" in land or facilities, as determined
by staff from project application.

4/19/83

-3-

#13 - Project has potential for high recreational use.

Points will be awarded by state staff based on application. Zero
points if no change in use will result. Points 1 to 5 determined
by staff consideration net gain, expansion of usability, whether
or not it is a central core for community, neighborhood facility,
high seasonal use area, a special facility and similar factors.

#14 - Project site has year-round use.

Points will be awarded the project on the basis of:

0 - project is not available year round
1 - available, not managed for year round
2 - available and designated/identified, not managed
3 - managed for year round use

#15 - Project site will have joint school/community use and management.

Points will be awarded on the following basis:

0 - does not apply
1 - sites has common use by both community and school
2 - site use supported by shared resources (e.g. people, main-
tenance and upkeep)
3 - recreation use of site covered by formal written joint agree-
ment and/or budgeted funding by school and community

#16 - Only non-federal (except Revenue Sharing) money used as local
match.

A yes or no question, zero or three points.

#17 - Existing recreation facilities well maintained.

As determined by project review staff after visit to community to
inspect project and other sites. Points based generally on I -
below average, 2 - average, 3 - above average.

This will involve total facilities in community, not just project
site.

#18 - Recreation and conservation operation and maintenance budget as
a percent of total community budget.

Source is data from the Office of State Planning recreation funding
survey. 0 - 5 points.

#19 - Community participates in public or private recreation programs
for the aged, handicapped population, or other special populations.

A yes - 3 points or No zero points question.

#20 - Broad citizen involvement including volunteers in community re-
creation and conservation activities. Points range 0 - 4.

To be determined by staff from information provided in the project
application; private as well as public activities.

#21 - Community has a paid full-time, part-time or summer recreation
program staff.

Points will be based upon the information provided relative to
paid program staffing.

There will be a spread of 0 to 3 points.

4/19/83

-4-

#22 - Community has a conservation commission, per RSA 36-A.

Provide proof of the current activity of the commission, such as
minutes of meetings. Two points will be awarded for an active,
legally established commission. One point only if currently in-
active. Zero points if not established.

#23 - Community has a recreation/park commission, per RSA 35-B:l through
35-B:7.

Provide proof of the current activity of the commission, such as
minutes of meetings. Two points will be awarded for an active
legally established commission. One point if currently inactive.
Zero points if not established.

#24 - Presentation of proposal. 1 - 3 points

As determined by project review staff. Two major elements are
the completeness of the application documentation and the adequacy
of the information provided.

#25 - Exceptional merit/opportunity of project.

To be determined by project review staff from information provided
in application and factors such as one-of-a-kind, rare opportunity,
exceptional merit. Basis will be those factors within the total
state-wide program and within the community sponsoring the project.

There will be a spread of 0 to 9 points.

4/19/83

I APPENDIX E
TOWN COUNSEL
I OPINION LETTER

I~~~~~~~~LE ELLS
I Anomreys At Law 47 Winnacunnet Road
GMz W. Holmes Hampton, New Hampshire 03842
Stephen G. Ells 603/926-6162

December 16, 1983

Stanley Hamel, Chairman
Seabrook Conservation Commission
87 Walton Road
Seabrook, NH 03874
I ~ ~~Re: Proposed Purchase of Land - Westerly Side of Route IA

Dear Mr. Hamel:

After my recent telephone conversation with you, I met with Paul
Durgin and Don Wilson with regard to their work on behalf of the Seabrook
Conservation Commission in the title examination and survey of land
which the Commission is considering buying from Mr. Dondero. Three
* ~~~issues were discussed as follows:

1. Whether the "sand line" as existed in 1925 controls the descrip-
tion of the westerly line of this property or whether the sand line as
currently existing is controlling.

2. Whether Himmer Realty Trust has any claim upon a portion of
this land, pursuant to Affidavit of Abbie Dow dated August 30, 1974, and
Plan of Land dated 1976 and recorded in 1979.
3. Whether Marilyn Erikson, ,by the location of several trailers
near the cross beach area, has gained any interest in a portion of this

I have met with Mr. Wilson twice and Mr. Durgin once and have reviewed
I ~ ~~their progress to date. I also have conducted research at the Rockingham
Registry of Deeds and at the Supreme Court Law Library. It is my under-
standing that Mr. Durgin is in the process of completing the final survey
which will show specifically any encroachments in the cross beach area by
Marilyn Erikson and will also show any movement of the sand line from that
which existed in 1925.

With regard to the first issue, the problem arises because the deeds
tend to describe the westerly boundary of this entire area as being bounded
by the edge of the sandy beach along the marshes. It appears, of course,
I ~ ~~that the sand has moved since the early days in which the description was
drawn. This appears to be the case of first impression in that I find no

Stanley Hamel, Chairman
Seabrook Conservation Commission
Page 2

specific law or cases which deal with this situation. It is my opinion,
however, that the early deeds clarify the existence of the sand line by
reern to a Plan of Seabrook Beach, drawn in May of 1925 and recorded
at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds. Therefore, the sand line that
existed in 1925 and shown on the plan, is probably the westerly boundary of
the land now owned by Mr. Dondero. I draw this conclusion from the results
of my legal research concerning the law on description of boundaries and
the rules of construction used by courts in interpreting deed descriptions.
A deed which contains a reference to a plan is most highly regarded and
I ~ ~probably controls over less definite a'nd more ambiguous descriptions. It
is my understanding from speaking to Mr. Durgin that the 1925 sand line
can be reproduced, and that he will do so on the plan that he will present
to you.
In the event that the sand line has moved significantly to the west
and is not included in the property owned by Mr. Dondero, the Commission
must decide whether it wishes to purchase the land on which the sand is
located in order to preserve the dunes. This obviously, will require
* ~~additional title survey and appraisal work.

The second issue involves an area of about 3.8 acres on the northerly
portion of the Dondero land and extending in an easterly direction from
I ~ ~the marsh area. Himmer Realty Trust owns three adjoining parcels located
in the marsh and having as their easterly boundary, the "Seabrook Beach."'
The problem is created by the f iling of a plan by Himmer Realty Trust showing
an extension of this marsh area into what appears to be land owned by Mr.
Dondero, apparently under a claim of adverse possession. There is no deed
to justify this claim, nor has any court action been initiated to quiet the
title to such claim. The only document which I can find which suggests a
right to claim said property, is an Affidavit signed by Abbie Dow. In this
Affidavit, she indicates that the Dow family had owned houses in an area of
high, flat land, over which a dirt road ran. The evidence that I can find
suggests that if there is any claim to adverse possession, it is to only a
small strip of land abutting the marsh and on which there may now exist the
charred remains of two houses. Without exploring these matters in greater
depth, which I do not believe is justified at this point, it is not possible
to fully evaluate the claim. In any case, such a claim of adverse possession
can only be confirmed by court action.

I ~~~~It is my advice with regard to this issue, to have this land included
in the Dondero property for purposes of an appraisal. I also suggest that
our appraiser draw up a separate appraisal for the disputed area in case it
I ~ ~is necessary in a future court action. The town must pay for the land that
it purchases or takes by condemnation and whether the money is paid to Mr.
Dondero or to Himmer Realty Trust, can hopefully be left to an agreement
between those two, or by resolution by a court.

With regard to the third issue on the location of trailers by Mrs.
Erikson, I do not have all of the facts since I cannot determine where

Stanley Hamel, Chairman
I ~ ~~Seabrook Conservation Commission
Page 3

exactly the trailers are placed or what claim she has made to the land.
I would prefer to defer this issue until I have reviewed the location of
the trailers and determined from the Commission whether it wishes to purchase
this land or rather to delete it from cconsideration.

I ~~~~One other issue may arise as a result of a final survey in the location
of a billboard near the sideline c~f Route 1A. I would be happy to address
this issue if it arises as a result of the final survey plan. I hope that
I ~ ~~this letter provides answers to the Commission and to your experts; however,
if you have any other questions or wish to have anything clarified in this
opinion, please do not 'hesitate to contact me. am sending a copy of this
letter to Mr. Durgin and to Mr. Wilson.

Very Iy urs,

Ga 4 mes

G~U/cm

cc: Mr. Paul Durgin
II ~ ~~Mr. Donald Wilson L

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX F
AFFIDAVIT:
I RE: HIMMER REALTY TRUST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Z222-DS�3

"-I'~~ ~~THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROCKINGHAM, SS.

AFFIDAVIT

03
- � _ NOW COMES, Abbie Dow, of Seabrook. County of Rockingham, and State

.-_ 'of New Hampshire and swears:

co Ad. 1. That she is of sound and perfect mind and memory.

'* 'r~'.'.2. That she is the daughter of George L. Dow, who died June 17, 1948 and
* 'Leonora Dow, who died February 9, 1942 and the niece of Albert Dow,
the granddaughter of Jacob F. Dow, also deceased, all late of Seabrook,
New Hampshire, all of whom once owned land in that portion of Seabrook,
New Hampshire, located westerly of Route l-A, so-called, and known as
"Cross Beach".

3. That Abbie Dow and William Dow are the only children of George L. Dow
and Leonora Dow and that there are no other heirs of George L. Dow or of
Leonora Dow.

4. That she is familiar with three adjacent tracts of land in that area known as
"Cross Beach", formerly owned by her grandfather, Jacob F. Dow or her
father George L. Dow and now believed to be owned by Interchange Realty
Corp'.

S. That tese three parcels include a two acre tract once owned by her father,
George L. Dow, which was conveyed to Boyd, then to Himmer, then to
Interchange Realty Corp.; a three and one-half acre tract once owned
by her grandfather, Jacob F. Dow, and which he conveyed to her uncle,
Albert Dow, which he conveyed to Gauron, then Gauron conveyed to Brown,
Brown to Himmer, and Himmer to Interchange Realty Corp.; and a
three and one-half acre tract once owned by her grandfather, Jacob F. Dow
and sold to her mother now deceased, herself, and her brother, William
Dow as "the heirs of George L. Dow", and by them to Interchange Realty
Corp.

6. That between the line of sand dunes in the area and the edge of the marsh there
has been, for as long as she can remember, an area of hih flat land over
which a dirt road ran and on which houses were erected. 'Me houses were
situated between the road and the edge of the marsh.

7. That there were houses situated In this area belonging to members of
her family or their successors in interest for more than forty years, until
their recent destruction.

8. That the easterly line of the above described lots has, for as long as she
can remember, been determined to be by herself and members of her
family to the east of the line of the dirt road.

I<X/Ct.7 _ , 1974
a- / / 6Abbie Dow '

Personally appeared Abbie Dow, and swore that the foregoing statements
were true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

Before me,

jUstic. of the Peac/
Justice of the Peac~/leabli