APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 20, 2003

 

The Chairman, Victor Danevich called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

 

The Secretary, Mr. Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced)

 

ABSENT:

 

Paddy Culbert, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Planning Director Amy Alexander

 

Also present was the Board of Selectmen: Greg Farris, William McDevitt, Jean-Guy Bergeron, Richard Derby

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Bousa would be voting in Mr. Culbert’s place.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the February 3, 2003 meeting would be moved to February 6, 2003. 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Donahue & Tucker Invoice

 

An invoice had been received from the law office of Donahue & Tucker, the attorney that provided opinion to the Board regarding the State Statutes. 

 

MOTION:

(DeLuca/Ouellette) To authorize payment of the Donahue & Tucker invoice for legal services provided to the Board in December, 2002. 

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Tim Fraize request - regarding Honey Lane

 

Mr. Tim Fraize and Ms. Pat Fraize met with the Board to discuss their concerns regarding the drainage on Honey Lane.  Ms. Fraize informed that during the July 20, 1998 meeting she questioned the construction of Honey Lane.  She said at that time, there were significant water problems on her property which forced their sump pump to run non-stop between November and August.  She said prior to the construction of Honey Lane, when the water was pumped it met the natural flow of water from Marsh Road across the dirt path (now Honey Lane) and down into the wetlands.  Ms. Fraize said that she asked the engineer (Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates) what would happen to the water.  She was told by Mr. Zohdi that the situation could be dealt with by the use of under drains, catch basins and cross culverts, which were subsequently installed.  She said the water continued to sit in a pool on their property which has now formed a crater approximately 25ft in circumference and encumbered their leach field.  She said the drain appeared to be too high for proper water drainage.  Ms. Fraize requested that the drainage be corrected before Honey Lane is placed on the warrant for acceptance as a Town road. 

 

Mr. Fraize circulated photographs that showed the natural flow of water across his property.  He also showed photos that conveyed the pools of water that now occur on his property due to the construction of Honey Lane.  He said that he had been assured that when the project was complete, the water would flow to a drainage pipe, which to this date does not.  He said that he had spoken with a contractor who provided an estimate for work to correct the drainage.  He said that the Road Agent had reviewed the road and made suggestions, which would need Planning Board review and approval before any work could be done.  Mr. Fraize wanted to know what cure the Town planned if the road was approved. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the culvert was not installed properly, and was approximately 20ft-25ft off.  He believed that the Town should not take responsibility of the road until the culvert was installed correctly, and the drainage problem was resolved. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said that there had been several meetings regarding Honey Lane and the need for the drainage to be corrected.  He said that recommendations had been made to resolve the problem.  The Board had left the resolution up to the engineer and the developer.  Mr. Scanzani said that one solution would be to do some back hoe work, or as Mr. Zohdi noted, some ditch line work could occur.  Mr. Danevich said that the corrective work to be done estimated under $5000. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the water would flow anywhere if it were to make it to the drain.  Mr. Fraize did not know. 

 

Selectmen Farris said that the Board of Selectmen relied upon the information provided by the Road Agent, Planning Board and Planning Director when roads were ready to be presented to the Town.  He said that he walked the site and noted that the lot was not the same now, as it was pre-construction.  He also felt it would be bad faith of the Town if the work was not required to be done per the plans. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that he checked with Town Counsel regarding the process.  He said that the Planning Board had the responsibility regarding the enforcement of the regulations.  Mr. Farris believed that too much of the bond money was released too early.  He felt the retained amount should be increased from 30% since costs were not decreasing. 

 

Mr. Fraize asked if there was a sufficient balance remaining in the bond to perform the necessary work.  Mr. Danevich said the bond contained over $40,000. 

 

Mr. Neil Morris, 23 Honey Lane (adjacent to Mr. Fraize) said that the water also drained across his property and pooled in certain spots. 

 

Mr. Jeff Gowan, Livingston Road said in the past when he was on the Board, the Planning Director would draft a letter and notify the developer that either a portion, or the entire bond would be pulled to complete necessary work. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked Mr. Fraize to differentiate the water problems contained on the property pre-construction and post construction.  Mr. Fraize said he had always had water problems.  He said the issue was that the natural flow of water had been blocked off so that the water could not escape his property.  He showed a photograph that depicted the drainage pipe being located in front of his leach field.  Mr. Danevich reiterated that the culvert had not been installed according to plan. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the drainage study noted that the flow would not be impeded.  He said if the Board believed the studies, the solution would be to relocate the culvert.  Mr. Danevich said another suggestion was to re-grade the property.  Mr. Lynde asked if it were advisable to look at the drainage study again and withhold enough money to be able to perform either task.  Mr. Scanzani said that the Board made it clear to the developer, at several meetings, that the Board expected the post-development water problem on Mr. Fraize’s property be solved.  Mr. Danevich believed the answer would be to reinstall the culvert.  Mr. DeLuca said it was obvious that the water flow needed to be corrected, since the levels were not supposed to change between pre- and post-development. 

 

* Administrative continued below

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen to place the following roads on the Warrant to be accepted as Town roads: Westfall Road South, Autumn Street, Litchfield Circle, Keilty Avenue, Tall Oaks Drive, Scotland Road, Hickory Hill Extension, Ellsworth Drive, Velma Circle, May Lane, Willowvale Avenue, Diamond Hill Road, Harley Drive, Beacon Hill Road, Jones Farm Road, Shannon Circle, Matthew Drive, Sycamore Street, Woodlawn Drive, Gaudet Lane, Pete’s Way, Priscilla Way, Megan Circle, Melissa Drive, Irene Drive Extension, Robin Road, Honey Lane.

 

Mr. Danevich began the discussion with Honey Lane, since the public attendees were either residents, or abutters. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Pam Morris, Honey Lane said she would like her road to become a public road. 

 

Ms. Denise Carboney, Honey Lane asked if there were any outstanding issues other than the drainage.  Mr. Danevich answered no, not to his knowledge.  Ms. Carboney said that street signs were needed.  Mr. Danevich said that he would add street signs to the punch list.  Ms. Carboney asked if a house would be constructed in front of her home.  Mr. Danevich said that there were no current plans, and the previous plan had been denied due to several issues.  He said each of the issues would need to be resolved before a new plan could be brought back to the Board for review.  Ms. Carboney asked if the construction debris would be removed (i.e. pvc, wires, propane tanks).  Mr. Danevich said it would be reviewed.  Mr. Lynde suggested obtaining an estimate for the removal of the items and adding it to the amount needed for correcting the drainage. 

 

Mr. Neil Morris, Honey Lane informed the Board that there was a drainage pipe partly exposed, that didn’t appear to be made of the proper material.  He said the pipe was able to collapse.  Mr. Danevich said the pipe would be reviewed.  Mr. Morris also noted that he had standing water at the end of his driveway. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to not recommend Honey Lane for placement on the Warrant Article.  Mr. DeLuca seconded.  Mr. Lynde felt that the developer should be put on notice that the bond would be pulled if there were elements not constructed per the plan.  He questioned if the road could be placed on the ballot, knowing that the money would be pulled for corrections to be made.  Mr. Scanzani didn’t agree.  He said the problem could have been corrected three years ago.  Mr. Farris said that it was not easy to pull a bond.  He said that even if the culvert were moved, it would still have to season.  He said it may be unfair, but the burden should not be placed on the Townspeople to accept, repair and maintain the road.  Mr. Lynde questioned if the culvert would work if it were in the correct place.  He wondered if the Board should believe in the drainage study or not.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To not recommend Honey Lane for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town road. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the Road Agent and the Planning Director had both signed off on Irene Drive and Robin Road.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that Robin Road had over-wintered.   

 

Mr. Scott Orlando, Robin Road, who lived at the end of the cul-de-sac, referenced a letter that he sent to his builder (Jim Peterson), dated September 21, 2002 with a carbon copy to the Planning Board, which informed of the issues on his property.  The letter noted that the former Planning Director, Dave Brouillet, Town Engineer, a home inspector and two professional landscapers commented regarding the pitch of the road and the drainage issues.  He said it was suggested by the Town Engineer, Mr. Brouillet and the home inspector that a catch basin be installed at the front of the property as well as curbing to direct the runoff into the drainage easement.  Mr. Orlando said that the excessive water flow may cause leaching problems.  He said there was a letter on file in the Planning Department which suggested that the developer, Thomas Mahoney, and the builder, Jim Peterson work something out to address the drainage issue.  The Planning Director did not believe that regrading the land would alleviate the problem long term since the road was pitched toward Mr. Orlando’s home.    Mr. Danevich said that the Board had not received the September 21, 2002 letter. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked for a description of Mr. Orlando’s property and the reason he felt the road was pitched toward his house.  Mr. Orlando showed the Board his house location and the contour of the road.  Mr. Danevich said he would have the property reviewed.  He said if the Board chose to not recommend Robin Road for the warrant, that it could be amended on the floor during the deliberative session.  Mr. Fraize noted that sand was filling into the swale, which, in two years would make it not work.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To not recommend Robin Road for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town road. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich said the Board had received a clean inspection report regarding Irene Drive.  The Board briefly discussed their uneasiness regarding the information being provided. 

 

Mr. Leo Dougherty, Robin Road asked if the road was not accepted, if it could be accepted in the near future.  Mr. Lynde noted that a special town meeting could be held. 

 

With some reluctance, Mr. McNamara made a motion to recommend Irene Drive, based upon the recommendation of Road Agent Don Foss.  In the memo, Ms. Alexander also recommended that the road be accepted.  Mr. DeLuca seconded.

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/DeLuca) To recommend Irene Drive for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Scanzani abstained

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the Board could request information from the Planning Director (Amy Alexander) regarding the as-builts on the road.  Mr. Danevich said the Board had been informed by the Planning Director that the Board would not receive any additional support, since recommendations had already been made.  He said he would make an additional request.  Mr. Farris asked if all the roads had already had their final coat.  Mr. Danevich said the Board had requested (two weeks prior) that the Planning Director research the top coat dates, but through an e-mail response from the Planning Director that she would not provide the information requested to the Board.

 

Mr. Danevich said that he created a web page to better track roads.  He said that he cross-referenced the web page with the GIS map used by emergency services. 

 

The Board went on to discuss the following roads and make the following motions:

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To recommend Westfall Road South for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(DeLuca/McNamara) To recommend Autumn Street, Litchfield Circle, Keilty Avenue for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town roads.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To recommend Tall Oaks Drive for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich suggested deferring Scotland Road until it over-wintered.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To not recommend Scotland Road for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town road. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich suggested deferring Hickory Hill Extension until it over-wintered.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To not recommend Hickory Hill Extension for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich suggested deferring Ellsworth Drive, Velma Circle and May Lane until they over-wintered.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To not recommend Ellsworth Drive, Velma Circle or May Lane for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town roads.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To recommend Willowvale Avenue for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Lynde asked if the drainage issue had been corrected.  Mr. Danevich said the drainage had been cleared as part of a new subdivision on Dutton Road.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To recommend Diamond Hill Road for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Scanzani said if he was not certain that the top coat had over-wintered, he would not vote in the affirmative.  Ms. Ouellette said she based her information on the road already being paved when the initial walk was done on Mulberry, at least two years ago. 

 

MOTION:

(Ouellette/DeLuca) To recommend Harley Drive for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Scanzani abstained.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich said that the road was not contained on the GIS.  Mr. Scanzani recalled an issue at the end of the cul-de-sac and wanted to know if it was resolved.  Mr. Danevich said that DES had been questioned and responded that it was probably not related to the road. 

 

MOTION:

(DeLuca/McNamara) To recommend Beacon Hill Road for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Scanzani abstained.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich suggested deferring Jones Farm Road until it over-wintered.  He brought up the concern that the Town had two streets with a similar name, Jones Farm Road and Jones Road.   

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Scanzani) To not recommend Jones Farm Road for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town road

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(DeLuca/McNamara) To recommend Shannon Circle for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Scanzani suggested deferring Matthew Drive, Sycamore Street, Woodlawn Drive Extension and Gaudet Lane until they over-wintered.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To not recommend Matthew Drive, Sycamore Street, Woodlawn Drive Extension and Gaudet Lane for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as Town roads.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To recommend Pete’s Way for placement on the Warrant Article to be accepted as a Town road.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich suggested deferring Priscilla Way until it over-wintered.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To not recommend Priscilla Way for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town road

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich suggested deferring Megan Circle and Melissa Drive until they over-wintered.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To not recommend Megan Circle and Melissa Drive for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town roads

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Danevich suggested deferring Herrick Circle and Dodge Road until they over-wintered.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To not recommend Herrick Circle and Dodge Road for placement on the Warrant Article for acceptance as a Town roads.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Danevich noted that Benoit Extension would be added to the tracking list he was compiling. 

 

Mr. Farris said that two people had written letters complaining about the drainage on Tall Oaks Drive.  He said that he would follow up and provide information the Board.

 

Mr. Danevich said that he would draft a letter of recommendation to the Board of Selectmen regarding the roads for Town Warrant.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE CON’T....

 

Joint Planning Board and Board of Selectmen discussion

 

Mr. Danevich said that there were a couple issues that had evolved, one being the legal support, and second, the change of the Town engineering firm. 

 

Town engineering firm - Mr. Danevich said that with the notice by the former Town engineering firm (CLD Engineering), there was a rapid research of firms handled by the current Planning Director (Amy Alexander).  He said that the final three qualifying bids were briefly reviewed by himself, Mr. Scanzani and Mr. Lynde, of which Ms. Alexander made the decision to engage, during the interim, TF Moran.  He said that the Board had concerns regarding the hiring process and general feedback regarding the type of engineering firm being sought after.  Mr. Danevich circulated the type of information previously being received by the former engineering firm.  He said the current company did not provide the same type of documented support. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the role of the former engineering firm and the support they provided.  Mr. Danevich described the information provided by the three qualifying bid companies.  He said it was understood that a company was needed quickly, but at this point the Board was concerned regarding the depth of services and the type of review (i.e. site plan review, plan review, subdivision review, drainage studies, traffic studies), which has prompted uneasiness with finding supplemental support. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that Ms. Alexander had visited each of the companies and had rationalized her decision based upon her visit. 

 

Mr. Bergeron asked who received the paperwork reviewed by the Board.  Mr. Danevich said that he would generally receive information through a carbon copy of what was received by the Planning Director.  Mr. Bergeron asked if information was being sent to the Planning Department, without a copy to Mr. Danevich.  Mr. Danevich did not know what the Planning Department was receiving.  He said the information currently being received was significantly less that the former company. 

 

Mr. McDevitt said he did not care who the engineering firm was, but wanted to be involved, since, ultimately Selectmen would be held accountable to certain actions (i.e. placing streets on the warrant). 

 

Mr. Scanzani made the suggestion to separate the review of plans from the inspection of plans.

 

Mr. Danevich reiterated that the Board did not have the same level of comfort with the current firm and was unsure if the support needed to make rational decisions on plans was being received.  He noted again that the Board was unclear with the process used to hire the present firm.  Mr. McDevitt said the decision was made in crisis mode because the Selectmen owed it to the public to have a firm in place.  Mr. Farris believed that the people knowledgeable in the field should make the decision, such as the Planning Board, Planning Director and the Road Agent.  He suggested that the Planning Board create an RFP and decide how often the firms should be reviewed.  Mr. Danevich asked if the Selectmen were amiable to the Planning Board facilitating a bid process for an engineering firm.  Mr. Farris said he would like a coordinated effort with all the parties involved. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked about the report that Mr. Bobula created in connection with the Planning Department.  Mr. Farris explained that Mr. Bobula asked questions of the Selectmen and later came back with a preliminary report that was basically a fact-finding organizational chart of how the Town offices and departments were structured. 

 

Mr. Danevich said previously site plan review and inspection services were being performed by one company, and were now being reviewed to possibly separate the two.  He said that NRPC and the Office of State Planning strongly recommended separating the two.  He went on to discuss how the process would be followed out from acceptance through approval.  Mr. Scanzani discussed the organization of the offices and didn’t feel that the Planning position could be done by one full-time person.  He noted the administrative pieces (helping people at the window and accounting) should be separated from planning issues (Route 93 widening, Water District).  Mr. Danevich said the Board would like to be involved in the process discussions.  Mr. Lynde felt that Mr. Bobula’s report could be used as the vehicle to make decisions.  Mr. Farris said that the report was a draft of ideas that the Planning Board should review and provide input.  Mr. Danevich asked if anyone disagreed that the Planning Department was short staffed.  The Selectmen agreed that the department was short staffed.  Mr. Lynde questioned if the department had the correct staff.  He said one of the problems was the lack of systems/procedures.  Mr. McDevitt suggested that Mr. Bobula meet with the Selectmen.  Mr. Scanzani believed there was a need for the Planning Board to work closely with the Selectmen.  He said the Board was having stresses with not receiving necessary answers from the Planning Department.  Mr. Farris believed the situation that needed facilitation was the ‘housekeeping’ issues that had accumulated over the past two and a half years.  He also believed that the Planning Board should meet with Mr. Bobula to discuss his report.  Mr. McDevitt agreed that the Planning Board should receive the level of service it deserved. 

 

The Planning Board and the Selectmen discussed the search and interviews that took place during the search for a Town Administrator and Planning Director. 

 

Mr. Yarmo went back to the separation issue and believed that the Planning Board should consider two engineering firms.  He noted that conservation issues were missing in the past. 

 

Mr. McDevitt discussed the history with obtaining additional staff.  He didn’t feel the public recognized the staffing issues.  Mr. Danevich noted that responsibilities kept being tacked on, with nothing being taken away.  Mr. Scanzani asked that the Planning Board be involved with any staff interviews. 

 

Mr. Bergeron reviewed the information received by the former Town engineering firm.  He believed that possibly the new engineering company was sending information directly to the Planning Department without carbon copying the Planning Board. 

 

Mr. Derby discussed the search for an engineering firm when reviewing work on the bridges.  He said out of sixteen, only about four rose to the top. 

 

Mr. Danevich said he would like the opportunity for the Planning Board to move forward and send out a Request for Qualifications.  He said the bids could be submitted per specifications drafted co-jointly with the Planning Director, Fire Inspector, Building Inspector and Town Administrator.  Mr. Scanzani said that he preferred that bids be collected per qualifications.  Mr. Danevich asked that the bids be done within a two-three week period.  Mr. Scanzani suggested that the Planning Board discuss the possibility of separating inspections from plan review as well as have two different engineering companies doing the inspections. 

 

Mr. Jeff Gowan, CIP, and former Planning Board member agreed with having more than one company.  He believed competition was good.  Mr. DeLuca supported more than one engineering firms.  Mr. McNamara also felt more than one company, and competition would be good.  Ms. Ouellette had no additional comment.  Ms. Bousa agreed with separating the construction and inspection.  Mr. Farris said that the RFP should be composed and sent out as soon as possible.  He went on to discuss the process the Planning Board could take when interviewing companies. 

 

Mr. McDevitt felt there should be more than one firm.  He discussed the state law regarding hiring and said that the Planning Board could hire consultants, but the law was silent regarding the Town Administrator and the Selectmen hiring an engineering firm.  He went on to read aloud the Warrant Article from 1986, when the first Planning Director was hired. 

 

Mr. Danevich confirmed the support for the Request for Qualifications.  He hoped the Planning Department could send the Request for Qualifications out, which in his opinion should be returned to the Town Administrator.  He said the process would be facilitated through the Planning Board work sessions, with the Selectmen invited to attend.  The next step was for Mr. Danevich to begin to facilitate the process.

 

Legal support - Mr. Danevich said that the former Interim Planning Director, Clay Mitchell brought up concerns regarding the Planning Board’s legal support that would differentiate between legal questions regarding current interpretations for an application being reviewed and support for trials.  Mr. Farris said if justification was shown, it was fine, as long as their reputation was known, since the legal ramifications ended up with the Selectmen.  He said if the firm chosen was one specializing in land use, he suggested finding a firm that would carry the Planning Board through court, if needed.  His main concern was that the Town would be protected. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the support wanted, and what had been previously provided by the Interim Planning Director since he was a land-use attorney.  There was further discussion regarding how counsel would be paid for the services specific to an individual plan, and not specific to an individual plan.  Mr. McDevitt said there was no separate budget for general legal advice not in connection with a specific plan.  Mr. Lynde reiterated that the Planning Board had the authority to hire legal counsel for case-specific legal opinion that could be charged back to the developer, but any other legal advice needed would have to be cleared through the Planning Director and the Town Administrator.

 

Mr. DeLuca stepped away. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

Deferred to the next scheduled meeting.

 

NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, (b), (c) & (e) (hiring of a public employee; matters which, if discussed publicly, would affect adversely the reputation of any person; legal)

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. DeLuca returned.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, except to seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting.  The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 10:25 pm.  Also present were Planning Board Alternates Robin Bousa and Bob Yarmo, and the Board of Selectmen.

 

The Board returned to public session at approximately 11:45 pm.

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/McNamara) To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:45 pm.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary