APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

October 15, 2002

APPROVED – October 22, 2002

 

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGAINCE

 

PRESENT:

Mr. Greg Farris, Mr. Harold Lynde, Mr. Jean-Guy Bergeron, Mr. William McDevitt,

Mr. Richard Derby

 

Also present:

 

ABSENT:

Mr. Tom Gaydos, Town Administrator, members of the press and general public.

 

None.

              

Chairman Farris opened the meeting at approximately 6:30 pm. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

October 8, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Derby/Lynde) To approve the October 8, 2002 minutes as amended.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

The amendments to the minutes were as follows:  page 6, second paragraph, last sentence shall be amended to read as follows: “Mr. Bergeron said that once the clean-up was complete, an application could be filed to receive a percentage of the ‘overall closure’ costs back.) 

 

OPEN FORUM

 

Mr. Farris reminded residents that there would be an election November 5, 2002.  He asked that people learn what they could about the candidates before casting their vote, since the election would be the first since the redistricting. 

 

APPOINTMENTS

 

None.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Municipal Building - Discussion of Bids

 

Mr. McDevitt noted that format for bids that Breadloaf requested was exclude the bid amounts until a formal contract had been entered into with Breadloaf and the bidder.  He said once the contract had been signed, the bid amount would become public record.  He said that Breadloaf requested that the Selectmen delay awarding the Overhead Doors bid so that a qualified local bidder could submit their bid.

 

Mr. McDevitt reviewed the bids as follows:

1) Masonry (division 4) - Surface Cleaning Experts

2) Rough carpentry (division 6a)- Fernald Construction

3) Finish carpentry, siding, louvers and trim (division 6b) - Fernald Construction

4) Roofing (division 7b)- Prime Roofing

5) Overhead doors - delayed until October 21, 2002

6) Wood, windows, sky light, switches (division 8c) - Merrimack Valley Wood Products

7) Special construction (cells in cell area for Police) (division 13) -

8) Elevator (division     ) - Otis Elevator Company

 

There was a brief discussion regarding a bid alternate, which would be to make a hole in one of the walls at the new Police Station for a prisoner telephone.  Mr. Gaydos discussed the system of prisoners making collect phone calls.  He said the addition of the new phone, would alleviate the need for an officer to escort prisoners to a secure phone.  Mr. McDevitt said that January 15, 2002 Breadloaf will inform if there were funds available for bid alternates. 

 

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynde) To accept the submitted bids, with the exception of Overhead Doors.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. McDevitt said Breadloaf informed that it would be several weeks before the next round of bids. 

 

Mr. Farris said that the Selectmen had a previous conversation regarding how many trees would stay on the common and how many would be removed.  He said the major discussion was the amount of trees that would be left along the Marsh Road stonewall area.  He said after review of the site, the pine had been removed, and the hard wood was still remaining.  Mr. Farris said that the trees remaining were tentatively scheduled to remain until a better idea of where walkways and paths would be placed. 

 

Pulpit Rock Road Project

 

Mr. Derby said that the bid for the Pulpit Rock Road work was awarded to the low bidder.  He said the work was due to begin October 16, 2002 and was scheduled for completion on November 8, 2002. 

 

Itinerant Vendor Site Plan Review

 

 Mr. Farris said that at the last Selectmen meeting, there had been a discussion regarding Christmas tree vendors and if they required a site plan review or would fall under the Hawkers/Peddlers license.  Mr. Gaydos said that he discussed the situation with an attorney.  He said based on the attorney’s comment it was believed a site plan review would be needed if a vendor was setting up a display in an area that impeded the traffic originally counted on as part of the original site plan review for the property.  He believed the approval process could be made very simple.  Mr. Lynde noted that other activities occurred on the property being discussed.  Mr. Gaydos was not familiar with the other activities on the property.  Mr. Lynde believed that a site plan review would be valid for some sites.  Mr. Gaydos was seeking to formalize a process. 

 

Mr. Bergeron felt the issue was land-use and certain things should be reviewed, such as location, length of time, and type of property (i.e. commercial). 

 

Mr. Gaydos suggested review of the parameters so that it would be clear when a site plan review would be needed.  Mr. McDevitt discussed the possibility of applicants meeting certain criteria, such  as the following: 1) compliance with applicable zoning regulations; 2) meets any existing site restrictions; and 3) no creation of safety problems (not through review of safety staff, but as viewed during normal business).  Mr. Gaydos felt review should be done prospectively. 

 

The Selectmen discussed under what parameters a site plan review would be required for impermanent vendors, such as those selling Christmas trees.  Mr. Gaydos will draft a procedure to be reviewed by the Selectmen.  Mr. Lynde suggested contacting NRPC.  Mr. Derby suggested that Mr. Gaydos also discuss yard sale issues with NRPC.

 

Legal Budget/Planning Board Request

 

Mr. Farris noted that at the last meeting, the Selectmen had briefly discussed the Planning Board’s request for an additional $15,000 being added to their legal budget.  Mr. Lynde said he would not want to add additional money to the budget unless it would be covered by additional fees so there would be no impact on taxpayers.  Mr. Farris said that Mr. Victor Danevich, Planning Board Chairman said there would be some offsetting revenue.  Mr. Gaydos said there was currently a fee which would cover the Town’s cost to review the regulations.  He was concerned if the Planning Board would make decisions based upon one attorney’s advice and then seek a different attorney for defense. 

 

Mr. Lynde began by saying he did not feel additional legal counsel was needed.  He felt Town’s Counsel was a fine attorney.  He also felt that not every application would need counsel’s review.  It was Mr. Lynde’s belief that the Planning Board would be justified covering the extra costs with the application fee for those applications requiring additional review. 

 

Mr. Gaydos asked for the opportunity to speak with Town Counsel, the Selectmen agreed.  It was requested that Mr. Gaydos have counsel’s opinion by the next scheduled meeting. 

 

Reconsideration of the Transfer Station Budget

 

Mr. McDevitt said that a request for reconsideration of the Transfer Station Budget had been received.  He said that Mr. Bruce Mason, Superintendent of the Transfer Station had submitted a memo September 13, 2002 to reconsider point 8 (Expense Account) and change the amount from $400 to $2000.  The reason for the line change was to accommodate the recent rate increase for 20-pound propane tank removal . 

 

There was a brief discussion and suggestion that a ‘drop-dead’ date be set for acceptance of the tanks, and anything being brought in after such date would have a fee attached.  Mr. Gaydos believed there would be a natural tapering of resident tank disposal, which would be the time to set a ‘drop-dead’ date.  Mr. McDevitt said that the Town was now being charged a fee for the tanks.  He read aloud a portion of the memo submitted by Mr. Mason which outlined the amount of tanks being shipped out.  He reiterated that the change in the budget was due to the fact that the Town was now being  charged a disposal fee. 

 

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Bergeron) To reconsider the Transfer Station Budget. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Bergeron) To amend the Transfer Station Budget to a total of  $445,701 on the basis that the Town was now being charged for removal of propane tanks, which was considerably in excess of what was budgeted.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

None.

 

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT/SELECTMEN’S REPORT

 

Mr. Gaydos noted that the Selectmen had accepted the donation of land to be given to the Town’s North Cemetery.  He said that correspondence had been received and the original deed would be recorded.  Mr. Gaydos informed that he was approached by the former property owner of 10 Tina Avenue.  He said that the property had previously been taken by the Town for non-payment of taxes.  He said the Town had an obligation, within three years, to honor a request by the owner to redeem the property.  He said the total cost of all taxes, interest and expenses, plus 15% assessed valuation was $1,034.32.  He noted that there would be an additional charge for drawing up the deed.  Mr. Gaydos asked for the Selectmen’s permission to contact an attorney and get a pre-agreed price for drawing up the deed, as well as contacting the former owner and making the offer. 

 

Mr. Lynde said in reviewing RSA’s there seemed to be a possible contradiction.  Mr. Gaydos said that he could obtain a written opinion from the attorney he spoke with regarding the requirements.  There was a brief discussion regarding the process of selling the property back to the former owner.  Mr. Lynde felt there was no reason to wait a week, if legal opinion was that the property could be sold back to the former owner within three years.  Mr. Gaydos said that if an approval was granted, it could be subject to obtaining written legal opinion.   

 

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Bergeron) To allow the former owner to redeem property on 10 Tina Avenue for all taxes and fees due.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Bergeron informed that the brush area would be open at the Transfer Station next week.

 

Mr. Lynde had no report.

 

Mr. Derby said that the work on Pulpit Rock Road should be commencing October 16, 2002.  He said that some days the road would be closed to through traffic. 

 

Mr. McDevitt reminded that the Ground-Breaking Ceremony would be held Sunday, October 20th at 2pm. 

 

Mr. Farris had no report.

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

Mr. Gaydos said that the decisions reached during the non-public session would be sealed for a period not to exceed two weeks. 

 

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Derby) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, a and e (legal and personnel)

 

ROLL CALL:

 

Mr. Farris-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. Bergeron-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Derby-Yes

 

Mr. Farris noted that when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, except to adjourn the meeting.  The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 7:55pm.  Mr. Gaydos was also present during the non-public session.   

 

The Board returned to public session at approximately 10:07 pm.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

(Derby/Lynde) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:07 pm.

 

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary