DERRY — During Tuesday night’s public hearing on a plan for the town to take control of the Adams Pond Dam, residents had a variety of views on the potential transfer, with some speaking out against an additional tax burden on the town and others pointing to the beauty and historical significance of the pond.

Late last year, the Town Council heard from members of the public about the possibility of saving the Adams Pond Dam. Jean Gagnon had proposed eliminating the dam to avoid costs associated with the repair or replacement of the dam after it was labeled as deficient by the state Department of Environmental Services’ dam bureau.

After negotiations between the town and Gagnon, Gagnon agreed to transfer the deed for a 0.73-acre parcel including the dam and embankments to the town.

With Councilor Michael Fairbanks absent from the Tuesday night hearing, the council agreed to table a final vote on the issue until a future meeting when there is a full council in attendance.

Several residents said they did not want to pick up the bill for the deficient dam.

“What kind of legal position is the town in if the town picks up the dam?” asked Al Dimmock. “We shouldn’t be picking up someone else’s problem.”

Redfield Estates resident Janet Wetherbee noted that the residents of her private development have a similar situation where they live near a small pond. However, she said, the residents of the development pay for the upkeep of the dam.

Wetherbee said Gagnon should pass on the costs of the dam repair to the potential homeowners of the development he is building along Old Chester Road.

“I would love for the town to pay the bills for us as they do for Mr. Gagnon,” she said.

Kelly Martin said: “As taxpayers, the residents (of Derry) can’t afford to rebuild the dam. Bottom line, this is private matter and not one the taxpayers of Derry should be responsible for or pay for.”

Town Administrator John Anderson noted that Gagnon plans on removing the dam no matter what if he maintained control of the dam.

“There is no financial benefit to Mr. Gagnon; he is going to remove the dam,” he said.

However, several residents said the dam and the pond should be saved as a recreational and historical site.

“The site does have historical meaning to the town,” said town historian Rick Holmes. He said the dam, built in 1720, is older than the town and is at the site of a flax mill that helped support the community in its earliest days.

“Adams Pond is a treasure that we can’t possibly lose in this town,” said Arthur Karras. “It’s one of the best things to happen in the town in the past five to 10 years to have (Gagnon) relinquish the dam and have the town have control of that beautiful property.”

With the town taking over control of the dam, Public Works Director Mike Fowler noted that the town has time to look at several options for the dam.

The options to address the structural issues, including a full replacement of the dam only at an estimated cost of $150,000, removal of the dam at an estimated cost of $20,000, or removing and rebuilding the structure to a height lower than six feet, thereby removing it from state jurisdiction. The pond would be permanently lower, resembling a dry, summer condition similar to this year, but not left completely dry, according to Fowler. The estimated cost for that option is between $75,000 and $150,000.

Conservation Commission Chairman Margaret Ives said the options deserved further study, although she said she is not in favor of the removal of the dam.

“All we are voting on tonight is to accept ownership of the dam,” said Councilor David Milz. “It gives us more time to get answers to these questions about dollar figures. The downside is we don’t decide to rebuild the dam, and we tear it down.”

aswift@newstote.com