SEPTEMBER 19, 2000

APPROVED - October 3, 2000





PRESENT:                          Mr. William McDevitt, Ms. Deb Casey, Mr. James Hardy, Mr. Gregory Farris, Mr. Harold Lynde.


Also present:                      Mr. James Pitts, Town Administrator, members of the press and general public.


Chairman McDevitt opened the meeting at approximately 6:32 p.m.




Mr. Walter Sikut, Marsh Road, stepped forward to express his feelings regarding the approval of the article in connection with adding a sidewalk.  He believes the area would be better without it and would like to be notified in the future before approvals are made so that he may express his feelings.




BOARD OF HEALTH: WAIVER OF ARTICLE K - Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Chairman, called a brief meeting to order regarding the proposed septic system 84' from the bed well, rather than the 100' required in Chapter 295-16 B.  It was stated that the existing system has failed.  The new system shouldn't have an adverse effect on the water supply, due to the grade of the slope going away from the existing bed well.    Mr. Zarnowski doesn't have a problem with the proposed.  He noted that the State requirement is 75'.  There are two tanks and three leaching lines. 


Ms. Casey confirmed that the proposed would be an improvement.  The answer was yes.


MOTION:           (Casey/Hardy) To accept the request for the Article K Waiver - ML 17-12-276, 164 Gage Hill Road.


VOTE:                  (6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.






Mr. McDevitt summarized RSA 231:28 as amended and said that it provides that property owners may petition the Board of Selectmen to layout roads over existing private rights-of-way.  He said Spring Street Extension is an existing private right-of-way.  The RSA 231:28 also states that Selectmen may conditionally lay out roads on compliance with betterment assessments provided in the statues. 


Mr. Bob Gleason, 7 Little Island Park, stepped forward to state his concerns, which were as follows: 1) Width of the road.  He has informed the Town's engineering firm to take whatever land necessary to widen the road as long as the existing boulders are restacked; 2) $34,000 for hot top.  He said the figure doesn't include sub-surface preparation or drainage; 3) $140,000 for rebuild of Spring Street extension.  He doesn't believe it's a good figure to work from because it was taken from another road which was three times as long and 50% wider; 4) $161,000 from the Engineering company who based it from the $140,000 and in turn $21,000 worth of contingencies were added (for things such as ledge).  He said he's been involved in three foundation digs in the area with no problems with ledge; 5) $181,000 which was built from the $141,000 and includes interest; 6) There is a letter that states twelve families are in favor of the project.  He said there are 28 taxpayers and voters that control 31 pieces of  property. 


Mr. McDevitt said the Town had received an estimate from CLD (Town's engineering firm) for $161,200 to bring the road up to Town standards.  The ultimate amount won't be known until the road is finished.


Ms. Casey asked if Mr. Gleason has seen the received bid.  He said he would review at the conclusion of the meeting.


Mr. Ergendino Perrone, 1 Little Island Park, read a prepared statement.  ATTACHMENT #1.


Mr. McDevitt made it be know that the entire cost constructing/re-construction Spring Street extension to make it a Town road is born by those who reside, or are served by it. 


Mr. Clark Harris, 14 Spring Street Extension, appeared before the Board of Selectmen to note the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed.  He started with the following advantages: 1) Financial.  He said the Town will lay the money out, but it will also get it back.  He brought up the 1000' improvement of Campbell Road and said there is a section of the road that is over 4% grade; 2) St. Margaret's Drive.  He said it was voted to wait until there was enough money to improve.  He noted that it also is over 4% grade with no curbing; 3) Quality of Spring Street extension.  He said he spoke with CLD and the breakdown is $141 per foot, but for a new subdivision, the cost would be $100 per foot. Mr. Harris then noted the disadvantages as follows: 1) Speed will increase; 2) Provides for a connecting street.  Mr. Harris said his request is to receive more information from the Town and from the neighborhood.  He feels that it should be designed and sent out to bid so that a feasible number can be reviewed.  He also wanted to know how long the betterment would take. 


Mr. McDevitt informed that the Board of Selectmen has 10 days to begin process unless a petition from a majority of the abutters is received.  He then went through the estimates and explained the calculations done by assessor.   Mr. Lynde added that the figures don't include interest. 


Mr. Harris brought up that the fact that thirty days from acceptance of bids, the project can be rejected, and within that time there could be a public hearing. 


Mr. Farris said he remembered St. Margaret's Drive and although it's not done to town specs due to the undefined boundary lines, it is accepted for fire  and safety.  He feels the proposed is a similar situation. 


Mr. Lynde said asking for bid specs in order to reject them if they are too high troubled him.  He said it doesn't make sense to go out for bid specs if the numbers are incorrect. 


Mr. Pitts informed that CLD was instructed to base their estimate on the existing road width, using an average of 18'as well as taking into consideration a couple choke points of 16'.


Mr. Frederick Pultar, 22 Little Island Park, said he owns three parcels and asked if he would be paying for three parcels.  He also asked if the Town would be paying for their property as well.  He concluded by saying he was not in favor of the proposed.


Mr. Ergendino Perrone, 1 Little Island Park, said he owns two parcels and wanted to know if he would have to pay for two.  He said the Town should go by evaluation of the property because one of his properties has a condemned house.  He would like information, such as: 1) How they will be accessed; 2) What the total cost will be; 3) How long will payments have to be made, and can people pay a lump sum so as to not pay interest.  He doesn't understand how a vote can be made without all the information received.


Ms. Martha Pultar, 4 Cote Drive, said she and her husband own four lots, which are land locked because they are rock and not buildable.  She also noted there is no road access to their property.  Currently, they pay $2 per year for taxes.  She said she is willing to pay a share, but is concerned about the evaluation of the property being divided equally.  


Mr. McDevitt explained that the only legal guidance they have is that the assessment has to be reasonable and in proportional amount in relation to the benefit that the petitioners receive.  He said it is clear that the petitioners need more information.


Mr. Lynde spoke of the assessment and said that when the figures were used of 58 parcels, of varying sizes, it is conceivable that some properties will have no benefit, and therefore would be hardpressed to access them at a full rate.  Mr. McDevitt expressed concern if things get complicated and warned about implications of unfairness.  Mr. Lynde then discussed the interest charges based on 5% over five years.


Mr. Charles Dehney, 10 Little Island Park, said he has two parcels which he doesn't use year-round and wanted to know how assessment would be broken down in comparison to full-time residence. 


Mr. McDevitt said that issue hasn't been discussed yet, but there will be a public discussion.


Mr. John Zimmerman, 3 Spring Street Extension, is against having the Town do the road over.  He feels the Town will benefit due to the Town's property at the end of the road.  He said the taxpayers shouldn't have to give up property and the road and then not have the Town pay to put it in.  He brought up forming an association between the residence of the road.  He also wanted to know how payment would be broken down if a person went bankrupt.  He wanted to know who was responsible for making the road passable by emergency vehicles. 


Mr. McDevitt said he wasn't sure of the answer to that question and briefly discussed a court case regarding the same issue.


Mr. Zimmerman also asked about the amount, if any that the Town would pay since it owns land at the end of the road.  Mr. McDevitt said they would have to speak to Counsel to clarify what rights/if any the Town has to that property.  Mr. Zimmerman said he is concerned with the safety issue of added traffic if the Town decides to build on the property.


Mr. Pitts said the Town would not pay any share, because the Town would raise that money by taxing non-abutters, and that would be illegal.  He said it would have to be a betterment fee. 


Mr. Zimmerman's last question was how to stop the proposed.  Mr. McDevitt said the law is, within 10 days if a majority of owners petition the Selectmen not to conditionally lay out the road, then the process stops.  He asked Ms.Diane Gorrow, Town's Counsel for clarification of the word owners.  Ms. Gorrow explained the statute, which says the petition, is to be signed by  a majority of the owners of the property abutting or served by the existing.  Ms. Casey noted that the Town of Pelham is listed twice as an abutter.


Ms. Virginia Berthel, 4 Spring Street Extension, said she has lived there 20 years and would like a public access road.  She said if the figures of a reasonable tax were in front of the people it would be easier to come to a decision.  She compared the proposed, and suggested a comparison with Woekel Circle (which splits from Spring Street Extension).  She said now that people live in the area year-round the road needs to be done and doesn't feel that people are against a public road. 


Mr. Paul Pultar, 7 Berthel Street,  said several years ago he put on record his concern of emergency vehicles not being able to make it through the road.  He felt he would have a right to sue the Town and the solicitor of the Town said they had the same concern of liability.


Ms. Casey said previously she's declined to comment due to purchasing property on Woekel Circle.  However, she is not an abutter in this case and will cast a vote.


Mr. Zimmerman stepped forward again to say he is against the proposed and to ask who paid for Woekel Circle to be paved.  He said there are a number of roads that were paved, which were not paid for by the taxpayers and abutters.  Mr. McDevitt explained the conditions for a few of the roads that have been improved and don't view them as the same as the proposed.


Mr. Harris spoke up once more to say that Woekel Circle was on a Town warrant accepted by Town meeting in 1986.


Mr. Lynde spoke of his understanding, which was if you have a private road, there is no Town liability.  Also, he said they still need to discuss the definition of 'benefit' and the percentage of payment.  He added, as a reminder, that if an association is formed to pay a yearly cost to maintain a road, the cost goes away once the road is put in.






Mr. Scott St.Germain, 15 Keyes Hill Road, voiced his concern about the fluids that may be leaking out of the vehicles because he has a well on his property.   He ended by saying they could probably find another source of income before he could find another source of water.


Mr. McDevitt said the issue was a certified plot plan was requested.  Mr. Farris asked if the Code Enforcement Officer could be called forward to ensure that everything that was asked for has been complied with.


Mr. Roland Soucy, Town Code Enforcement Officer, appeared before the Board and informed that the last visit was a couple weeks ago and at that time approximately 75% of the cars, tires, parts etc. had been removed from the Town land.  He said there is still a balance, which needs to be removed.


Mr. Paul Zarnowski said he hasn't been to the site since the original inspection at which time there were some 5 and 55 gallon drums that were not labeled, but his is not sure what has happened to them since.


Mr. Farris asked if there was any dismantling.  Mr. Soucy said a very small amount, one vehicle at a time.  He said presently he is working on a cement pad.


Mr. Hardy thought that this meeting was for the public to be heard, not the Selectmen.  Ms. Casey said in this case it has to be decided whether or not to extend the temporary license.  She said he is well beyond the 90-day time period and he has not complied with the requirements of the ordinance.  Mr. Hardy believes that would be a discussion for a non-public session.  Mr. Lynde said if the time period has run out on the temporary license, he doesn't have a license, so the motion would have to be whether or not to grant a license.  Mr. McDevitt asked the opinion of Ms.Diane Gorrow, Town Counsel.  Ms. Gorrow said the Board would have to make the determination whether or not to grant a license.  She said temporary licenses are given to correct what is not in compliance.  She doesn't believe it is inappropriate to vote.  She said if the temporary license has expired, he is operating without a license.  Mr. Lynde wanted to clarify if the Board needed to react to the license application in a final manner.  Ms. Gorrow said yes.


Mr. McDevitt encouraged the Board to defer voting at this time.


Mr. Farris on a final note requested, prior to the next meeting, the Board receive information regarding any additional remedies that have taken place.




Mr. McDevitt recapped the case.  He explained that the Selectmen denied a license some time ago.  That application and license decision was appealed to the Superior Court and the Town's actions have been appealed and are currently pending to the Supreme Court.  The application for a junkyard license now, is in order, and a public hearing is to be conducted in accordance with the regulations.


Donald Gartrell, Esq. of Galegher, Callehan and Gartrell appeared before the Board to represent F. Gendron & Co.  He said the application that was before the Board in 1999, was a renewal for an existing junkyard business since 1955.  He believes the statute is clear regarding the criteria for granting a license as well as the procedure by which it is regulated.  He explained that by virtue of the decision over a year ago, Mr. Gendron has had to cease his business, which has been an economic significance.  He said the findings on facts must be clear to demonstrate just cause to invoke that result. 


Mr. Gartrell said he wanted to focus on things that have happened since the Board's previous decision.  He said the criteria for granting this license have been satisfied and the reasons earlier given are not sustained by the facts now.  He then referenced the following letters:


               June 6, 2000: addressed to Attorney Isles (sp?), (Mr. Gartrell's partner), from the Assistant Attorney General of Transportation and Construction Bureau which indicated that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation confirmed on this date, that at present, the only thing preventing Mr. Gendron from obtaining a State Junkyard Permit is the failure to obtain a Town permit.


               June 27, 2000: to the Board of Selectmen from Mr. Soucy which informed that the inspection had been performed and everything appeared to be in order except a remaining portion of the original fluff pile.  Mr. Soucy's letter also said that the EPA said the pile had been treated and is no longer hazardous and also that the EPA is in negotiation with the owner for the removal of the fluff pile.


               June 27, 2000: to Mr. Soucy from the EPA, which states the cleanup is nearly complete.  The EPA has completed is escavation and the stockpile contaminated soils have been treated to render it non-hazardous.  Approximately 1/3 of the stockpile (4,000 tons) has been covered secured, awaiting final disposal to complete the project.  All the work to date has been funded by the EPA.  It went on to say that the EPA is currently in discussions with the State of New Hampshire, the owners and their representatives regarding possible alternate sources of funding for the remainder of the work.


               March 7, 2000: from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to the Edward's residence, 267 Gage Hill Road, Pelham.  Mr. Gartrell informed this is a sample of numerous letters written of similar report and finding.  The letter concluded that the levels of lead were deemed to be below the threshold with respect to water taken from their tap after flushing for a 15-minute period.  Only test above an indicated threshold level was at the pump, the pressure intake valve.  In conclusion, the lead found was due to solder and lead in the plumbing system within the home.  Mr. Gartrell said to their knowledge all the tests performed on the water at residences deemed to be in the radius of the Gendron junkyard have had similar results and show no migration of contamination that has effected the drinking water quality of any neighboring residences.


Mr. Gartrell said his understanding of the reason for denial was: 1) Ground water contamination; 2) Excessive noise and vibrations.  He went on to explain that there is no evidence of ground water contamination and the equipment used to shred metal is no longer on the premises.  He has reviewed the Board's junkyard, automotive and recycling regulation, and believes that Mr. Gendron can meet and exceed every one of the criteria set forth.  He used the conditions of the variance granted in 1974 for this operation as an example and said every one of those criteria have been met and satisfied with the possible exception of the location of some of the burm, and some of the planting.  He said the EPA supercedes the ability to meet the conditions. 


Mr. Gartrell let it be known: 1)  The enclosure of the junkyard is double the requirement; 2)  The use of the premises for disassembling vehicles is in consort with requirements; 3) Certified plot plan has been given to the Town; 4) Has been reporting to Town any pollutant discharge and disposal hazardous materials; 5) Hours of operation are within the prescribed under regulation.  He does not believe there is a public nuisance associated with the Gendron junkyard today.


Mr. Gartrell asked the Board to remain objective when hearing the allegations of suspected contamination.  He said there were problems that deserved correction and all the evidence indicates that it has been corrected and that it is minor activity of removing non-hazardous material to get it back into compliance.  He said the pending litigation before the Supreme Court could be terminated if it's possible to obtain a license with reasonable and consistent conditions. 


Mr. Gartrell submitted copies of the referenced letters to Mr. Pitts.


Ms. Patricia Altomare, 10 Balcom Road, spoke of her concern that is the public health risk assessment being done by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.  She said currently there is a study being done in California which questions lead and cholestiatora (sp?) tumors, which is the type of tumor her son has. This makes her nervous because she was, and still is stopped from drinking their water due to a high lead content.  She said both of her neighbors have been diagnosed with cancer and there was a family that stayed with her for approximately two years and one of the members has also been diagnosed.  She said within the six families in the area there have been nine cases of cancer.  She discussed the brook being tested and said it came up negative because it is constantly running.  She explained that for 18 years it has had salvage and waste products in it and the bottom of the brook tested high for PCBs.  She's thankful that the pile of hazardous waste of 15-20 years is gone now, but is concerned with seepage and how far down it might have gone and how it might have spread.  She is concerned with bathing/showering in the water due to recent medical discoveries of how quickly medication can be absorbed through the skin and into the body.  Ms. Altomare also wanted to address the existing car pile near the water, which has been there for many years.  She said that it needs to be removed before the DES does testing at the property, therefore they can do a thorough testing of the entire property.  She was informed by the DES that Mr. Gendron's file is open to the public, but she hasn't reviewed the contents yet.


Mr. Lynde asked what the extent of the health assessment would be and the anticipated completion date.  Ms. Altomare said they hoped to be done this fall, but have received a lot of communication from the people, she feels it will probably take longer than November.  She said also, that it is such a complex site healthwise, it may take longer than originally


Ms. Casey asked if she still is not able to drink the water at her property and if she is still receiving bottled water.  Ms. Altomare said yes, they haven't been cleared yet and didn't think anyone else had been cleared either.  Mr. Lynde said his understanding is that the tests are within specs, but bottled water is still being supplied.  Ms. Altomare answered yes and said maybe they don't feel safe yet.  She said she was informed by Frank Gardner, DES that the hazardous waste could be cleaned up to be within business zoning, but it would never be cleaned up for residential standards due to lack of funding to go deeper.  She ended by saying she bought a house next to a junkyard and it didn't bother her because there was a brook and trees between them, and there is nothing wrong with a junkyard, however, this is hazardous waste, cancer causing agents, contaminated water, contaminated brook, she would be happy to have just a junkyard.


Mr. McDevitt asked Ms. Altomare if she's heard anything more from the DES since their letter in May.  She answered no and questioned the different results received with each test.  Ms. Altomare then said everytime they receive a high reading it's when they test directly from the tank, but when they go through the house plumbing it's a lower rate.  She informed that her artesian well is only 7 years old and the well owner said there aren't any well lead parts that could cause lead to the extent the study showed.


Ms. Joan Talbot, 7 Hobbs Road, asked if the junkyard is operating without a license from the Town.  Mr. McDevitt answered that they don't have a license from the Town.  She then asked if and if this is a new license, and if so, a new variance would have to be obtained by the ZBA.  She went on to say that with a new variance, there are 5 criteria, and the first one states there can't be a diminution of property values.  She said there is a memo from Janet Reardon to Mr. Lynde that the Town recognizes a devaluation of the properties.  She also noted a court decree, that has not been overturned, which states the junkyard is a nuisance.  She noted in the New Hampshire Planning and Land Use, page 242 section 677.33.  Ms. Diane Gorrow, Town Counsel said this is not a new original license, this is a renewal.  Ms. Talbot read a portion of the court decree that, in summary, states the junkyard is in violation of the conditions in the original variance and makes Mr. Gendron unsuitable for re-licensing.  Ms. Gorrow said the decision is under appeal.  Ms. Gorrow's advice is to look at any facts that have changed since last year. 


Ms. Talbot said there are minor nuisance things which have not changed since last year such as the storage bins in violation of the Town's ordinance, the setbacks and fencing which doesn't substantially screen and has not been kept up.  Ms. Talbot handed pictures taken two days prior to the board.  She then noted that the certified plot plan by the EPA, which she obtained from the Planning Department, shows certification, but is not accurate and will affect three land lots.  She asked if the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit been received.  Mr. McDevitt said he's not aware that they have it on hand, but will.


Ms. Talbot said the hazardous materials escavation really bothers her.  She handed out maps from Frank Gardner, DES.  She pointed out that on her property escavation went down 5' and they only went down 6"-12" junkyard property and will leave the remaining soil and cap it.  She was informed that they would not be removing the remaining soil and would like to know who will be responsible for removal and when it will happen.  She noted that the most current soil testing showed high lead and PCB readings.  She also informed the ground water alpha benzines were 300 and the State standard is 50 which will be left to naturally clean up, she wanted to know if the junkyard continued, how would it be able to clean up.  She said she could probably live with the fence falling down and maybe with the trucks (even though they are a nuisance), but the pollution is scary.


Ms. Talbot's last question is with the burm.  She said because the EPA didn't have a certified plot plan, which showed the actual boundary line there is now a burm on her property, which will always carry a stigma.  If she wanted to sell she would have to inform the potential buyer of the burm which holds back pollution that will remain and any future pollutants.  She said the burm is supposed to be on the junkyard property and doesn't want it on her property. 


Mr. McDevitt asked why the burm is on her property.  Ms. Talbot said she wasn't informed ahead of time and when it was half-way built, she questioned the placement and was informed that building was too close to the property line and the construction vehicles couldn't make it through so it was built on her property.  Mr. McDevitt asked if the EPA constructed.  Ms. Talbot answered yes. 


Mr. Hardy asked if Ms. Talbot was aware that a State licensed surveyor signed the certified plot plan and also wanted to know which section she doesn't agree with.  She said she is aware that the plan was signed by a State licensed surveyor and said that she agrees with the plan except for the back boundary.  Mr. Lynde confirmed that the back boarder is the only thing in question, not the side boarder.  Ms. Talbot said the EPA is aware that the burm is located on the correct property.   She ended by saying having a junkyard isn't so bothersome, it's all the other stuff that is bad.


Ms. Marjorie Raza, 1 Hobbs Road, said that the EPA contracted to clean under the emergency removal program because of residential neighbors, that's why it's not cleaning or testing the entire junkyard.  She approached the Board and showed photos of the junkyard and pointed out which areas have been cleaned and which have yet to be tested.  She informed the EPA found a pipe coming from the Gendron property that drains onto their property and into the brook.  She then read a letter from Frank Gardner, EPA.  Her last issue was the placement of the burm and the soil underneath that contains the PCBs is not disturbed.  Mr. Hardy asked that Ms. Raza give Mr. Gartrell an opportunity to review the photos and letter she presented. 


Mr. Roland Raza, 1 Hobbs Road, wanted to clarify the lot lines and explained that the properties have been recently surveyed and he informed that the burm the EPA put in is on his and the Talbot's property and there is also a burm Mr. Gendron put in years ago.   He then read a portion of the zoning ordinance 307-19, and asked if the junkyard falls into the category.  Mr. McDevitt believes that it depends on when that provision of the zoning ordinance was passed.  Mr. Raza asked if hazardous waste is left on the property, could that property be used as a junkyard.  He believes there is a State statute, which specifies this.


Mr. Raza mentioned a past court case between him and Mr. Gendron, in which Mr. Gendron was asked about a junkyard, gave his response as, the site and smell is pretty adverse in and of itself.  Mr. Raza believes that is a nuisance and the burm is a nuisance.  He let it be known that he put in a reverse-osmosis filtering system.  Mr. McDevitt asked if they received a letter from the DES regarding the water testing.  Mr. Raza said yes, he received a letter informing to not drink the water.  He feels they took the tests at a low, but still had a high reading.  Mr. McDevitt asked if he has heard anything to the contrary since the initial letter.  Mr. Raza answered no. 


Mr. Bob Talbot, 7 Hobbs Road, said Mr. Gartrell has discussed Mr. Gendron having a license and running a business, but hasn't discussed any kind of closure procedure if he decides to retire and leave.  He said if the past is any indication of the future, there has to be a removal plan.  He also wanted to know who would be responsible and felt Mr. Gartrell should answer that question.


Mr. Bob Edwards, 271 Gage Hill Road, appeared before the Board and said he wanted to show the reasons he was against granting a license.  He then passed pictures to the Board, which included photos of the fence (previously submitted by Ms. Talbot and Ms. Raza), as well as photos of his children.


Ms. Helen Kennedy, 15 Hobbs Road, said she is opposed to the new license.  She said Mr. Gendron has contaminated the neighborhood, and never apologized for what has happened.  She said after the shredder was put in, the neighborhood was gone.  She noted that things could have been different if all of the contamination were trucked out.  She said the neighbors tolerated the shredder for many years because he was a neighbor and he had to raise a family, but now it's a different story.


Mr. James Kennedy, 15 Hobbs Road, he said they are still having water delivered.  He would like to know why the additional 22 tons is going to be taken away if it isn't hazardous.  He said it's no longer a junkyard, it's a hazardous waste site.  He said Mr. Gendron alone, and maybe the shredder created the mess.


Mr. Robert Champagne, 14 Hobbs Road, said he is opposed to the license.  He said he is still receiving bottled water.  He considers the site to be a nuisance due to the machinery and the pollution.  Mr. McDevitt asked if there is still processing going on today.  Mr. Champagne said yes, there is processing going on, with machinery being run and he saw a truck from Canada go in and have materials being loaded.


Michelle Tellier-Kelley was not able to attend the meeting.  She forwarded a letter to Ms. Casey, which was read aloud by Mr. McDevitt.  He let it be known that the letter does not represent his or Ms. Casey's opinion.


Mr. Gartrell appeared once more before the Board in response to the questions raised.  He started by saying he believes the function of the Board is to deal with the best and most objective evidence as possible.  He spoke of the questions raised about the certified plot plan with respect to boundaries and said it was certified by a registered land surveyor are without reservation.  He also discussed the burm and the location with respect to the Talbot's property and informed that the fence is not located on the boundary line, but inbound by approximately 10', therefore the burm is not on their property.  He spoke of the statements attributed to the DES and EPA and feels that some of them are irreconcilable to what he has said in writing to the Town.  He feels there have been misleading suggestions to the Board regarding the tests performed.  He said that there was a selective method of sampling and escavating soil to determine the extent and nature to which any hazardous materials had been deposited on the site.  He said there was also a method to treat and remove the waste, which was deemed hazardous.  He noted they didn't dictate the way test were done, they provided full rein of the property.  Mr. Gartrell said the nature of the problems addressed by the agencies, is that they determine what problems and to what extent they exist on the site.  He said they determine the method for removing and containing, as well as determining the effects and causes attributed with problems on the site.  He can't provide answers to why the State is still providing drinking water.  He didn't want to belittle the neighbor's concern, but wanted to note that a link to the operation of the junkyard as the source of the lead contaminate has not been forged by the people who have done the tests and evaluations.  He informed that the public health risk assessment has been going on for a long time.


Mr. Gartrell reiterated that they are seeking a renewal license for the operation of the junkyard as well as any new facts of a nuisance.  He doesn't believe that there is any new basis to constitute a nuisance.  He informed that applications are being prepared for this site to have a ground water management plan.  He then spoke of the escavation that had taken place  and informed that regular reports have been supplied to the Town regarding the safe handling of materials.  He asked to view the pictures submitted to the Board.


Mr. Lynde asked if he was aware of the request to remove the car parts pile.  Mr. Gartrell believes that the DES is the agency conducting the tests and removal and understands that they have concluded what they needed to do, and the site is being remedied by the final disposition of the treated waste being taken from the site.  He went on to say he is not aware of any requests to get at, or escavate and area that haven't been fulfilled. 


Mr. Lynde asked about the health assessment study.  Mr. Gartrell said the study has not been completed.  Mr. Lynde asked what the reaction would be when the study has been completed if it showed a cause or link.  Mr. Gartrell informed started by saying he is not an expert in these things, and has heard suppositions this evening to the same effect.  He said the places of the highest levels of lead concentration is at the pressure switch where the water enters the house which hasn't been flushed and the low readings were found at the taps is where they had been flushed.  Mr. Gartrell said he hasn't seen the site assessment, but there are base levels throughout society of certain cancers.  Mr. Lynde agrees that conclusions should wait until the study has been completed.


Mr. Lynde said his understanding is the back property boundary followed the thread of the brook and since things change of the years, he asked when they reference the back property boundary if they are referencing the current one, or the one from thirty years ago.   Mr. Gartrell said he is not familiar with the title for the property but it is his understanding if the deed descriptions in the chain of title describe thread of the brook as the boundary, it may move over time due to the movement of the water. Mr. Lynde asked if Mr. Gartrell was aware that the State has accumulated data and suggestions have been made that filling moved the thread of the brook.  Mr. Gartrell said he wasn't aware of that, but doesn't change his answer and believes that monuments control. 


Mr. Gartrell ended by saying one of the photos submitted by Ms. Talbot shows a fence adjoining a stone wall along the boundary of her property and no burm, which he felt, confirmed what he said earlier.


Ms. Joan Talbot, 7 Hobbs Road appeared again before the Board to inform the burm is in the back portion of her property.  She also noted that the fence is 1' away from her property and said it is 6' tall so when it fell over, if it was 10' away, it wouldn't have fallen on her property.  She also said that Mr. Frank Gardner stated that they would only go one foot down and cap it.  Mr. McDevitt asked that a record be put on record.  She concluded to say that she agrees the map is certified but disagrees that it can be certified and still be marked preliminary. 


Mr. Hardy asked the date on the map she is referencing.  She said July 29, 1999 and pointed out the centerline of the brook.  Ms. Casey asked to review her copy of the map and noted that the date is the same, but the information Ms. Talbot was referencing is not contained on the Board's copy.  Mr. Lynde noted his belief to be that EPA would clean up the residential properties to residential standards and clean the commercial property to commercial standards.  Ms. Talbot said the EPA informed, but wasn't clear that the rest of the clean up would fall under the Town or State.  Mr. McDevitt requested a copy of the plan.  Mr. Talbot informed that he received the plot plan from the Town's records.


Mr. Roland Raza, 1 Hobbs Road, came back before the Board to inform that he requested a clean bill of health from Mr. Frank Gardner whom said no, they would never do that due to abutting a hazardous site.  He said he'd never be able to sell his house. .   Mr. Hardy inquired as to who was building the home next door to Mr. Raza, adjacent to the junkyard.  Mr. Raza responded that it was his daughter.   He wanted to know if the hazardous waste site could be taken into consideration when applying for the new license.  Mr. McDevitt said the Board would take all the information into consideration.  Mr. Raza noted that not all the tests have been completed, and would said he would like them completed.


Mr. James Kennedy, 15 Hobbs Road, reiterated that the area is hazardous waste area.  He said they've tried to sell twice and couldn't because of the junkyard.  He doesn't think that a license should be granted.


Mr. Bob Edwards, 271 Gage Hill Road, wanted to give a final comment.  He asked that the Town's fathers not take a chance with his children's lives.  He said he has lost his mother, his father has cancer and he's also lost dogs.


Mr. Gartrell said the EPA prepared the certified plan done by the surveyor and anyone could rely upon it.  Mr. Hardy asked if he could clarify the two plans with the same date.  Mr. Gartrell said he had no explanation, but if a plan is preliminary it usually has been stamped, but is unusual to have been signed.


Mr. Farris would like the questions asked to be submitted to Mr. Pitts.  Mr. Hardy said the EPA or the DES would better address some of the questions.  Ms. Casey would like the Board to handle sending the letters to the EPA and DES.  Mr. McDevitt said the key is to answer the questions they have and wouldn't begin to answer speculative questions and ended by saying the Board needs to discuss.




SALE OF PROPERTY TO THE TOWN - 63 MARSH ROAD:  Mr. Pitts said there has been an offer to sell a two-acre parcel. He said they wanted to know if the Town would be interested in purchasing before the parcels go to the general market.


Mr. McDevitt said it might be more appropriate to revert to the School Board.  Mr. Pitts believes that the information has already been submitted.  Mr. Farris said the parcel might be of use to the Town/School (for additional fields) and thinks the Board should review.  Mr. Pitts said the assessor's card has been reviewed.  Mr. Lynde wanted to ensure the owner knew that nothing may happen until the March Town meeting.  Mr. Pitts said he informed them up front.


RESIGNATION OF POLICE OFFICER:  Mr. McDevitt informed that Special Officer Neil Murphy has handed in his resignation for review.  Mr. Hardy would like to discuss with the Chief of Police before accepting his resignation because he has been a Police Officer for nearly 20 years.




Mr. Pitts reported that:


Mr. Bob Trion has submitted the second reimbursement check of Federal and State Grants. 


There has been a West Nile Virus case with a human in Connecticut, nothing in New Hampshire.  The DES memo informed that scrap tire piles provide a habitat for breeding mosquitoes.  Mr. Pitts informed that the Town's are kept in a covered trailer. 


Recyclers are no longer permitted to accept propane tanks with the valve stems attached.  Mr. Pitts informed that the compactors have now been fixed, there was a blown fuse, which has now been replaced.


Hudson will have household waste collection at the Public Works Garage on Route 111 on September 30th, 8am-12noon.  


SELECTMAN'S REPORT:              


Ms. Casey informed that Mountain Orchard and Long View Circle have been approved for consideration by the Planning Board.  She also informed that the Planning Board has also approved PPS Realty and Mary Farm Trust.


Mr. Lynde has contacted NH DOT and the UNH extension service regarding bridges.  He received information and said they can design their own bridge without complying with State Standards and still receive 80% reimbursement as long as Town assumes liability.  However, State funding will not be available for several years, possibly one bridge in 2003 and most likely get in line for 2004.


Mr. Farris informed that CIP met for scheduling of projects. 


Mr. Farris also informed that Parks and Rec. had the first meeting since Summer hiatus.  He said it went well, and Bob Trion informed more grants would be coming available.  A committee will be formed for a 3-5 year plan to maintain facilities.


Mr. Farris ended by saying that Cable would be meeting regarding the final proposal from Adelphia.


Mr. McDevitt informed that the State of New Hampshire State Senate has congratulated Pelham Senior Center.


MOTION:           Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3, II,c.


ROLL CALL:     Mr. Hardy-yes; Ms. Casey-Yes; Mr. Farris-yes; Mr. Lynde-yes; Mr. McDevitt-yes.


The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 10:41 p.m.   Also present were Mr. Pitts, Mr. Zarnowski and Mr. Soucy. 


MOTION:           (Casey/Farris) To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.


VOTE:                  (5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.




MOTION:           (Casey/Farris) To adjourn the meeting.


VOTE:                  (5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 pm.


                                                                                                                        Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                                                        Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                                        Recording Secretary