BOS Minutes 05-02-2006

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF S= ELECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

May 2, 2006

APPROVED – June 27, 2006

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENT:

Mr. Victor Danevich, Mr. Harold Lynde, Mr. Jean-Guy Bergeron, Mr. Edmund Gleason, Mr. Tom Domenico, Mr. Tom Gaydos – T= own Administrator

Also present:

ABSENT:

Members of the press and general public.

None.

M= INUTES REVIEW - deferred to= the next meeting so the Selectmen have the opportunity to review.

<= /o:p>

OPEN FORU= M

Fire Chief E. David Fisher informed that a Town Meeti= ng would be held on Thursday May 18, 2006 at 7pm, Sherburne Hall to discuss what the Town’s plan was in regard to Avian Flu. He wanted the Selectmen= and residents to know that there was a plan in place; the Town Meeting would a= llow people to ask questions. He = said CERT had notified that they would be getting a regional trailer to aid in = the event of a flu situation (pandemic). He said the Town would be getting equipment through CERT and other = items through grant money; a list of needed items has been submitted to the Selectmen.

APPOINTME= NTS

Paul Zarn= owski, Board of Health – Waiver of Article K

The Selectmen convened as the Board of Health; with P= aul Zarnowski as Chairman.

32-34 Tenney= Road Development LLC, Tenney R= oad – Setback Waiver – Map 21 Lot 3-101; The designer/engineer is Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates who was seeking a waiver from Section 295:16 (setbacks to septic tanks/leach beds = from group 5 soils). The requirem= ent is 75-feet.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis (applicant’s attorney) = said because there was a proposed building in the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) the plan would have to go before the Conservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board; this is the fi= rst step in the process for all the required approvals. He said as a condition of approva= l, the applicant would prepare (and have recorded) a restrictive covenant against= any future development.

Mr. Zohdi said a Clean Solutions system was being pro= posed for the site. He then review= ed the proposed plan and explained that they would be in compliance with state of= New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services requirement of 50-feet. He said if they obtained approval= from the Selectmen, they would need to go to the Planning Board because their h= ouse and driveway was in the WCD; they were already on the Board of Adjustment’s schedule for such.&nbs= p; They would also be going before the Conservation Commission to gain approval for the project. He continued reviewing the proposed plan.&nb= sp;

Mr. Zarnowski asked if there was any impact to the wetlands. Mr. Zohdi answered no.

Mr. Lynde asked how much of the land in front was hig= h and dry. Mr. Zohdi said it was approximately 28,000-30,000SF. He said the lot pre-dated the requirement for 35,000SF of high and dry. Mr. Lynde said normally when a re= quest for Article K came in, it’s a case where the situation would be made better. He had a problem wit= h the proposal because it appeared that there would be a house and driveway almo= st completely in the WCD. Attor= ney DeCarolis said under zoning, a variance wasn’t needed to construct a= road/driveway to the upland portion of the lot (to put a house); they needed a Special Exception to build a right-of-way across the wetlands. He said they were proposing the l= east intrusive proposal. He said a driveway= would be permitted with a Special Exception (and the criteria would be easier to satisfy than a Variance standard); this is why the applicant was offering = the restrictive covenant to prohibit any development in the wetlands forever).=

Mr. Bergeron questioned if an applicant would usually= go to the Board of Adjustment requesting a Variance or Special Exception then to= the Planning Board prior to coming before the Selectmen (as the Board of Healt= h) requesting an Article K. Mr. Zarnowski believed in this case the best thing was to see if they could ge= t a septic system on the lot without going to the full-design stage. He noted that the plan met all th= e state criteria, except meeting the Town’s requirements. It was Mr. Zarnowski’s opin= ion that it was okay for the applicant to come before the Board of Health first. Mr. Bergeron asked ho= w Mr. Zarnowski felt about the system. Mr. Zarnowski said he had seen a few different designs for the lot = and the location was probably the best location of the system. He went to the site, but didnR= 17;t see a better way to access the high ground in the back of the parcel witho= ut an impact.

Mr. Domenico asked how the maintenance of the system = would be enforced since it was different than a traditional system. Mr. Zohdi said there was an alarm= in the system that would notify if the pump didn’t work. Mr. Zarnowski said there was a tw= o-year maintenance contract that had to go along with the system. Mr. Domenico asked how Mr. Danevi= ch felt about the proposed plan. Mr. Danevich said his ‘gut’ reaction was to not support the plan because the requirements would be waived to create the lot. He noted there wasn’t a lot= of room for a back up system. H= e said he would rather see it go through the process. He said he didn’t want to w= aive things up front when there were other opportunities. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the proposed p= lan again for the Board.

Mr. Lynde asked if the Planning Board identified the = lot as buildable when they did the subdivision.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi answered no. Mr. Lynde asked how large the wetland crossing would be. Mr. Zohdi said to get full use of= the proposed property, the applicant had the right to request a dredge and fill permit and access the back if they could.= He felt the applicant had the right to request a dredge and fill pe= rmit and would be able to obtain such. He believed the applicant could get a buildable lot and noted that = the applicant would include a covenant stating they wouldn’t develop the= land further and it would be a conservation easement.

Mr. Danevich recalled when the subdivision was done a= note was added to the plan stating that the lot was non-buildable. He said he couldn’t (in good conscience) support the proposal because when the Planning Board (to which= he was formerly a member of) did the Gauthier subdivision he voted in favor o= f the subdivision. Mr. Zohdi elabo= rated regarding the lot being not buildable.&nb= sp; He said at the time (of the subdivision) there was an area with a wetland violation and the lot was set aside to be part of the mitigation f= or those areas. It ended up, af= ter negotiations with the Wetland Bureau that the lot didn’t have to be = used for mitigation. Attorney DeC= arolis said the note on the plan stated ‘not a buildable lot at this time&#= 8217;.

Mr. Domenico understood the catch 22, but would feel = more comfortable if the Planning Board and Conservation Commission had already looked at the plan. Because = of such, he didn’t feel that he had all the information to be able to m= ake a decision.

Mr. Zohdi suggested that they ‘table’ the= plan for 45-60 days to apply to the Planning Board and Conservation Commission = to be able to obtain approval. He = wanted to be able to say that he had already been before the Selectmen and would = come back. Mr. Zarnowski said it = would be fine for the applicant to have a 60-day extension. Mr. Danevich wanted it clear that= no action had been taken on the proposed plan.

Mr. Gleason was reluctant to vote on the proposed unt= il such time as all the facts were provided to him; he wanted to better understand= all the ramifications of the proposed approach.

George &= Carol Hackett, 17 Grace Road – Setback Waiver – Map 30 Lot 11-187 – The applicants were seeking a Waiver to Article K, Sect= ion 295:16- setback distances from a pond to leaching field – 125-feet required; the state requires 75-feet.&nbs= p; Mr. Joe Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing the applican= t, met with the Board to discuss the waiver request. He explained that the property wa= s off Little Island Pond and had been in the applicant’s family since the 1920’s. He said the sy= stem had an existing septic system that sat approximately 45-feet from the lake. They would like to rep= lace the existing system with a Clean Solutions system constructed under the dr= iveway. All the state criteria would be m= et; the Town’s requirement is 125-feet from a lake, but the system was propo= sed to be approximately 90-feet from the lake. An additional waiver was being requested for the tank. The Town’s requirement is 1= 00-feet, the tank itself sat approximately 75ft.-80ft. off the pond; the state allo= ws for a reduction in the distance to the pond providing SDR-26 pipe is utilized. Mr. Maynard said t= he system was an improvement over the existing system.

Mr. Danevich said there was a note stating the existi= ng system would be abandoned in place and wanted to know why an effort wouldn’t be made to remove it since it was in the water table. Mr. Maynard said once the field w= as abandoned no liquid would be sent to it. He said if it was a requirement of the Board to remove it, they would do so.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Danevich preferred to have th= e tank removed.

Mr. Gleason asked if the location of the proposed sys= tem would fall within the state required guidelines. Mr. Maynard answered yes, the sta= te required 75-feet and the proposed would be approximately 90-feet. Mr. Gleason asked if it was the applicant’s intent to request approval from the state for the septic system design. Mr. Maynard a= nswered yes. Mr. Gleason asked if the proposed would be an improvement because the existing system had failed. Mr. Maynard said the proposed sys= tem would be an improvement because the applicant wanted to update the system.=

Mr. Lynde understood the constraints of the lot and placement of the system. He = felt the proposed system would be an improvement and appreciated the fact that = they were trying to get the system away from the pond.

Mr. Danevich asked if there was any reason the plan shouldn’t be approved. Mr. Zarnowski said no; the system would be a significant improvement. He said the way it was planned it= would meet all state criteria.

= ;

MOTION:

(Danevich/Gleason) To approve the Article K request= for Map 30 Lot 11-187, 17 Grace= Road for George and Carol Hackett conditioned that the tank be crushed and the pipe that falls below the water table is to be removed from the septic/l= each field.

= ;

VOTE:<= /p>

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

The Board of Health adjourned and the Selectmen recon= vened.

Merrimack= Valley Water District – Information Discussion – Mr. Michael Scanlon, District Chairman and Karen White, Acting Treasurer

District Chairman of the Merrimack Valley Water Distr= ict Michael Scanlon and Acting Treasurer= Karen White met with the Selectmen to provide and update regarding the District.= He discussed the importance of protecting the resources as a region.&nbs= p; He discussed money that had been collected from the communities inv= olved and how they were spent. He = said it was important for the District to remain a viable entity so if/when Nashua was succe= ssful with the eminent domain case, there would be an entity for the District to= be turned over to. He said hope= fully when everything was done, those who weren’t involved as part of the eminent domain case would be open to allowing those communities who want t= o be part of the regional water district to purchase those assets and move forward.

Mr. Bergeron thanked Mr. Scanlon and Ms. White for me= eting with the Selectmen and providing an update and their volunteerism. He said it was too bad that an arrangement had not yet been made with Pennichuck, but was hopeful that it would be made and be favorable to the district. He discussed the donations made b= y other communities. He noted that i= n the past the Board had supported the $10,000, but due to the default budget la= st year the Town was unable to donate. He said he hoped the Board would place an agenda item to discuss additional funds for the District. =

Ms. White discussed the concerns everyone had about Pennichuck merging, or being sold to an out of state company. She said that Nashua had put in over a million dolla= rs into the eminent domain proceeding. She explained what had transpired.

Mr. Lynde recognized the need to be vigilant about protecting water. He said th= e Town also understood the need to be part of the water district. He said Hudson had prevailed against Southern = New Hampshire Water and believed = Nashua would prevail in its case. M= r. Lynde believed initially there were 8 or 9 towns that were going to contri= bute and asked if money had already been collected from them, or if it had alre= ady been utilized. Mr. Scanlon s= aid the current members of the District were: Amherst, Bedford, Litchfield, Londonderry, Nashua, Pelham, = Pittsfield and Raymond and what each h= ad contributed and/or committed to pay. He said if the District ever acquired the water system, the intent = was to roll the expenses into whatever costs associated with purchasing the wa= ter district and repaying the communities.&nb= sp; Mr. Lynde noted that the current case before the PUC didn’t include Pelham and wanted to know what the next step would be if Nashua was successful. Mr. Scanlon said= if Nashua was successful in acquiring the Pennichuck Water Works assets, it w= ould be up to Pelham to contact Pennichuck East to inform they would like to be pa= rt of the District and enter into negotiations to purchase the assets in their community and convert them over to the District. He believed when the District bec= ame its own viable entity (generating revenue), it would work with the Town. However, at this point nobody kne= w what would be left of Pennichuck if it was allowed to be split up.

The Selectmen thanked Mr. Scanlon and Ms. White for u= pdating the Selectmen.

Muldoon F= ield Construction Project Presentation – Selectmen Gleason & George Saurman Present Construction Plans

Mr. Gleason stepped down from the Board.

Members of the Pelham Little League, Mr. Ed Gleason a= nd Mr. George Saurman met with the Selectmen to discuss the Muldoon Field Constru= ction Project presentation. Mr. Gl= eason indicated there was dire need for additional fields; Little League had loo= ked at some areas and it was felt that the proposed Muldoon Park project would significantly relieve the situation for Little League and pr= ovide additional recreation facilities for the Town once completed. He said it was estimated that aft= er the conclusion of the fabrication of the fields, Little League would have inve= sted in the vicinity of $28,000-$30,000 of its own money. Mr. Gleason felt it was a win-win= situation for the Town.

Mr. Saurman said Little League had been talking about= the project for about a year. He= said Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates had done the topo for the project. In looking at the project as a wh= ole, it was felt that the best location for the additional fields would be behind = the present play ground, which was the highest portion of the Muldoon property. He said this year the intention w= as to get the trees cut, the fields in and grass to grow. Consideration was given to any fu= ture development brought into the park; it was anticipated there would be a donation of lan= d out to Nashua Road, therefore they were leaving the option open to an additional access. There will be down lighting. The Town Forester and the Planning Director had reviewed the site/plan.

Mr. Lynde asked for a better explanation of where the proposed fields would be located. Mr. Saurman explained the location and how it would be laid out. He further explained where the po= ssible second access would be located. Mr. Lynde was concerned with adding more traffic and would like to see it addr= essed as part of the plan. Mr. Sau= rman explained that currently there were four little league fields on the soccer field and the plan was to move two up to the proposed fields so the same n= umber of people would be utilizing the park.&nb= sp; Mr. Lynde said there seemed to be a stall with a second egress beca= use no one had picked a point for it to go; it seemed the opportune time to do= so since when the field went in, the initial pathway for a crossing could be done. He didn’t feel t= he plan could proceed without a firm location for an egress. Mr. Saurman said they looked to s= ee where the location could be and put it on the plan. He said there was another access = that came out to Mt. Vernon, but it went through a lar= ger wetland and didn’t view it as an option. He said the engineer felt the pro= posed location of the egress was best; there would need to be some engineering a= nd with that came cost and it was unknown who would pay for such. Mr. Saurman said the only thing L= ittle League was proposing at this point was to get the fields in and get grass growing; after which they would start working to get the second egress in = and determine funding. Mr. Lynde= asked if it was possible to identify where the access would be. Mr. Saurman said they put the egr= ess on the plan, but they still needed further engineering to find out what land = would be used. Mr. Gleason said th= ey were willing to cut the road as far as they could. He pointed out that a wetland cro= ssing and clearance for the easement was needed, which also required concurrence= at Town Meeting. He would rathe= r have the plan approved to build the fields and relieve the situation they curre= ntly had. He said they weren̵= 7;t introducing additional traffic. Mr. Lynde didn’t feel Town Meeting approval was needed for an easement.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He also believed the state would recognize the safety issue and provide a wetland crossing. He felt the easement was critical= and would like to see where it was going to be located.

Mr. Domenico said there was a private organization wi= lling to spend $30,000. He believe= d a second egress was important, but didn’t want it to get in the way of= the plan. He believed the fields, lighting and parking area should be able to move forward and would be will= ing to make a motion authorizing the work with Mr. Gaydos and the Park & Recreation Director (Darren McCarthy) overseeing such as long as there was= an accurate topographic image of the park.&n= bsp; He felt the project should 1) identify the location of easement; 2)= work on the fields; and 3) ensure the Town had proper permits/easements; the co= st being the Town’s.

Mr. Bergeron felt the $28,000-$30,000 contribution wa= s a great thing. He asked if Par= k & Recreation was also involved in the project. Mr. Saurman said they had worked = with Park & Recreation because they would also use the fields. Mr. Bergeron believed the permits= would be taken out by the Town since it was Town-owned land. He said there was mention regardi= ng a swap of materials and wanted to make sure that it would be reviewed to make sure both sides would get a fair amount.&= nbsp; Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Gaydos if a 3^rd party would do th= e site estimation. Mr. Gaydos answe= red yes; the same principals would be used as with other properties. He said the permits were needed b= efore work began. The Forestry Com= mittee is forwarding a time line. <= /p>

Mr. Gaydos asked if there was an estimate for the val= ue of the equipment time. Mr. Saur= man said it was approximately $40,000 (at a discounted price). Mr. Gaydos said in the process of obtaining the permits, it was worth the time to try to get them all at one time. He said there would be= some expenses. He said the object= ive would be to work backward from the fall to create a timeline. Mr. Saurman asked if Mr. Gaydos r= ecalled the estimate for the 2^nd egress given by TFMoran. Mr. Gaydos answered no. He said TFMoran was just getting = the permitting, shooting lines and getting the area identified for the most efficient area across. The t= hird party person had not yet been identified.=

Mr. Danevich said from an auditor’s standpoint,= there needed to be a way to identify the volunteer time/equipment costs. Mr. Saurman suggested that test p= its be done to help identify the materials.

Mr. Danevich said the Selectmen were supportive of the project in the spirit and intent. The second egress was important.&n= bsp; In keeping with the spirit and intent, any material that came out, = or was exchanged, would be reinvested into the park.

Mr. Lynde asked if the down lighting would be on a ti= mer. Mr. Saurman answered yes. Mr. Lynde said he saw the timelin= e Dan Cyr put together and was willing to authorize that process to start (blazi= ng the trees and put together the bid package).

Mr. Danevich summarized the discussion and what proce= ss would be taken to begin. Mr.= Gaydos noted that Mr. Zohdi would be providing topographical maps which would help value the materials. The Par= k & Recreation Director will work with Mr. Gaydos. Mr. Saurman let the Selectmen kno= w that the abutters had been notified at the time they went before the Planning Board. Mr. Danevich confirme= d that per RSA 674:54 the public hearing had been held. Mr. Saurman asked if Mr. Cyr had = to cut the trees, or if there was reason Little League couldn’t cut the trees. He said Mr. Cyr wante= d to do the tree cutting in the whole park at one time;; whereas Little League just wanted to clear the trees in the area of the new fields.. Mr. Gaydos said they would have t= o get more information from Mr. Cyr. Mr. Saurman wanted to know if the value of the timber could be used toward the engineering or easement out to Nashua Road. = Mr. Lynde said Mr. Cyr would come in and tell the Selectmen the whole value of= the process.

Mr. Gaydos said he would report on a regular basis th= e areas that were running parallel and note what would happen with the funds so the time lines could be determined.

Mr. Domenico reviewed Mr. Cyr’s project timelin= e and didn’t understand why the process would have to wait until July 3rd -20^th since the location of the fields was known. Mr. Gaydos said a permit may be n= eeded and suggested finding out everything that was involved and setting it out = on a single timeline to determine what could be expedited.

Mr. Gleason said if the fields were to be done by the= fall, they would like to be in there by July (the latest). Mr. Lynde said he would like to w= ork with Mr. Cyr’s timeline. Mr. Danevich said if the one piece of the park could be pulled out of the plan= , it may help expedite the whole project. He said the Selectmen would meet in two weeks and would have an age= nda item for discussion/update. =

Mr. Gleason returned to the Board.

OTHER BUS= INESS

Raymond P= ark Update

Mr. Gaydos said a topographic map had been done and a= ll applications for permits were submitted. = He continued to discuss the project and how they were proceeding. They planned on bidding out the materials for conversion so the gravel and timber could be traded for work. Mr. Gaydos said the im= portant thing was to have constant updates; the parallel timelines had to continue= to keep moving. He said they we= re looking to get simultaneous permits (i.e. 3^rd field and fire suppression pond). Mr. Danev= ich asked how close they were to getting on the Planning Board agenda (for a p= ublic hearing). Mr. Gaydos said on= ce the permits were obtained, they had the drawings and the estimates were receiv= ed, they would request to be placed onto the Planning Board agenda. Mr. Gaydos said a lot of the work= had been done; there was already a contract (with J.R.Gauthier) to bid out the= work and the work to be done had been identified. A lot of the work would be done by volunteers. Everything will = be reinvested in the park. Mr. = Lynde didn’t believe they needed permit approval to go to the Planning Boa= rd. Mr. Gaydos said his goal was to k= eep the Selectmen informed on a regular basis.&nb= sp;

Tallant= Brid= ge Update

Mr. Gaydos said a pre-construction meeting was held; = the details were reviewed. Traff= ic flows have been identified; there are numerous signs that will be posted.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The project was slated to begin o= n May 22, 2006; = the bridge would be closed. Mr. Gaydos believed the Fire Chief’s issues have been resolved. He said they were entering into an agreement with a company for the soils testing.

TOWN ADMI= NISTRATOR / SELECTMEN REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos said he had a meeting with the Council on = Aging and they were interested in trying to forward a design for the future of t= he Pelham Senior Center. He said they needed a survey of t= he property. He said he spoke w= ith Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates whose company offered to donate the surv= ey along with the topographic showing any wetlands. He said the next step would be fo= r the Planning Director to meet with the Council to discuss what things they mig= ht anticipate in a design.

Mr. Gaydos said a sale was being planned in the back = yard during mid June which would consist of vehicles and various items.

Mr. Domenico, Mr. Gleason and Mr. Lynde had no report= s.

Mr. Bergeron said on April 25, 2006 he attended a Senate Capital Budget = Meeting at the State House; this meeting was on House Bill 2006 (State Transportat= ion Traffic Improvement Plan). H= e noted the members of the Committee and that he had testified regarding the bill.= The Committee requested more info= rmation. Mr. Bergeron said after the meeti= ng he was told by the Commissioner that they would alert of any progress.

Mr. Bergeron said he attended his first CIP meeting o= n April 27, 2006= ; Bill Scanzani will be the Chair, Bob Haverty will be the Vice Chair. He said there were four items dis= cussed that had not been given to the CIP: 1) 6-classrooms – Desirable; 2) Sherburne Hall - Desirable; 3) Road Improvements - Necessary; 4) bleachers – Urgent. He asked whe= n the items should be in and was told by May 25^th; the final date wil= l be approximately the beginning of September.=

Mr. Lynde questioned why the status of Sherburne Hall wasn’t higher since the use of the hall had essentially been elimina= ted. Mr. Bergeron said he could propos= e it to the CIP. Mr. Gaydos said if = the hall met code, additional meetings could be held in it.

Mr. Danevich discussed the possibility of scheduling = a joint meeting with the Planning Board, CIP and School Board to come up with a Town-wide priority list. The= re was a consensus to schedule a joint meeting May 23, 2006 at 7pm – Sherburne Hall. Mr. = Gleason asked if members of the Budget Committee would be appointed to review CIP.= Mr. Danevich suggested having the meeting on the 23^rd first to come up with a decisive plan. Mr. Danevich informed that the fi= rst round of Fire Chief interviews had been done. Each group that interviewed the candidates submitted feedback which would now be reviewed by the Selectmen.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

(Gleason/Lynde) Request for a non-public session pe= r RSA 91-A:3,II, a, b & d (personnel; Hiring of any person as an employee; Consideration of acquisition, sale or lease of property).

= ;

ROLL CALL:=

Mr. Danevich-Yes; Mr. Gleason-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; M= r. Bergeron-Yes; Mr. Domenico

Mr. Danevich noted that when the Board returned, afte= r the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, ex= cept to possibly seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting. The Board entered i= nto a non-public session at approximately 8:45 pm.

The Board returned to public session at approximately= 10:35 pm.

= ;

MOTION:

(Gleason/Bergeron) To seal the minutes of the non-p= ublic session indefinitely.

= ;

VOTE:<= /p>

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNME= NT

MOTION:=

(Gleason/Bergeron) To adjourn the meeting.

= ;

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carr= ied.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:35 pm.

&nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; Respectfully submitted,

&nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; Charity A. L. Willis

&nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; Recording Secretary