APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

April 1, 2003

APPROVED – April 8, 2003

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGAINCE

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

MINUTES REVIEW

March 25, 2003 - The changes to the minutes were as follows: page 2 - the word ‘involved’ shall replace the word ‘involve’ in the following sentence. “...should be more involve”; page 2 under the heading Approval of Tree Donation Program - “He said that a flat stone marker...” shall be amended to read “He said the cost for the flat stone marker...”; page 3 the sentence reading “He said separate there were ongoing projects that needed verification through third party review, which were funded by escrow accounts” shall be deleted and replaced with “He said there were ongoing projects that needed verification through third party review.  These are funded by escrow accounts that need additional funds.”; page 3 the sentence reading “....ask him to retro to the point of verification.” shall be replaced with “...ask him to return to an inspection point.”

The Selectmen asked that the motion on page 4 be reviewed and brought back for verification before the minutes are approved.   

OPEN FORUM

Mr. Vinny Mazzaglia, 2 Maple Drive spoke to the Selectmen, as a representative of his neighbors.  There had been a question regarding a tree in the center of a cul-de-sac on Mr. Mazzaglia’s street.  The Town Highway Agent felt that the tree should be removed due to the costs associated with removing limbs, a majority of the residents on the cul-de-sac disagreed.  Mr. Cornelius Smith, consulting arborist (with over thirty-years experience in the tree field) discussed what he found after inspecting the tree (White Ash) in question.  He said that the tree was approximately 60 - 80 years old and needed care.  He did not feel that the tree needed to be removed.  He reviewed what could be done to preserve the tree.  Mr. Lynde asked if there would be a problem with the way the cul-de-sac was built up around the tree.  Mr. Smith said that the ‘well’ around a tree should be the same width as the tree.  He noted that the ‘well’ around the tree in question had been smaller than the width for many years, and did not feel that it posed a problem. 

Mr. Mazzaglia noted that the residents tended to the tree, such as planting flowers.  He noted that there were no issues with vehicles turn-around the cul-de-sac. 

Mr. Lynde asked what the approximate cost would be to maintain the tree.  Mr. Smith noted that he ran a firm that performed such work and did not want a conflict of interest.  He did however say that the work needed would cost approximately $500 for a Class A prune that would be good for 5 - 7 years.  Mr. Mazzaglia said if the Town wanted to trim the tree, the residents would continue maintenance. 

Mr. Lynde said there would be a further discussion with the Town Administrator and the Highway Agent.  He was sympathetic to the residents.  Mr. Danevich confirmed with Mr. Lynde that no action would be taken until the Selectmen made a decision. 

Mr. Danevich asked if the residents would be willing to pay for the pruning.  The residents offered to pay half of the pruning costs.  There was further discussion.  A concerned resident said he did not want the Town to remove the tree simply due to pruning costs.  Mr. McDevitt said that certain funds would be reviewed.  The residents will keep in touch with Mr. Gaydos. 

APPOINTMENTS

Sue Hovling, Director of Senior Facility & Elderly Affairs

Mr. McDevitt informed that Ms. Hovling had gone to Chicago, Illinois and therefore asked that she discuss her trip. 

Ms. Sue Hovling, Senior Center Director discussed the classes she attended and the various programs introduced to help raise funds for senior centers.  She said she has had the opportunity to review how other communities operate.  Ms. Hovling said that she was a New Hampshire delegate to the National Institute of Senior Centers.  Through this she was able to be involved with a national presentation regarding state associations.  She briefly discussed how some communities were combining community centers and senior centers, which made obtaining block grants easier.        

Interviews for Boards, Committees and Commissions

Board of Adjustment -

Mr. David Hennessey seeking a permanent position to the Zoning Board of Adjustment met with the Selectmen.  He began by discussing his background and experience.  He noted that he had been an alternate to the Board for the past three years, with an excellent attendance record and would like the opportunity to be a permanent member.  He said that he would like the efforts of the Board to continue.  Mr. Bergeron asked Mr. Hennessey if he would be able to keep an open mind and base his decision on the information gathered at the meetings.  Mr. Hennessey believed his track record showed that he kept an open mind when reviewing/listening to cases.  Mr. Danevich wanted assurance that Mr. Hennessey would step down in the event of a conflict of interest.  Mr. Hennessey said in the past three years there had only been two instances where there was a need to step down.  He said in the future if a case came forward that had a potential conflict, he would step down.  Mr. Lynde asked for comment why a variance would be approved if all the five criteria were not met.  Mr. Hennessey discussed the Simplex case which has altered the way zoning boards review criteria.  He went on to discuss the issues taken into consideration when reviewing cases.  He said that in the past, he had voted in the minority based upon the criteria not being met.  Mr. Lynde discussed the spirit and intent of the ordinance.  He gave an example of a lot and asked for Mr. Hennessey’s opinion.  Mr. Hennessey spoke in general regarding a recent case and how the Board came to make its decision. 

Mr. George LaBonte seeking reappointment to the Zoning Board of Adjustment met with the Selectmen.  He began by discussing his background and noted that he was an attorney.  He said that he had served on the Board for two terms, one of which he was the Secretary.  Mr. Bergeron asked Mr. LaBonte if he would be able to keep an open mind and base his decision on the information gathered at the meetings.  Mr. LaBonte said that the Board had the responsibility to keep an open mind.  He said that he made his decisions at the end of all discussions.  Mr. McDevitt questioned Mr. LaBonte about a particular case and wanted to know why he had voted as he did.  Mr. LaBonte found it impossible to respond regarding a particular case without having backup documentation to review, since the Board hears numerous cases in a year.  Mr. Lynde gave an example of a case and asked what basis a variance would be voted.  Mr. LaBonte said evidence in every case was individual, with separate issues.  He provided examples of items the Board would review (which included the spirit and intent of the ordinance) when making a decision to either grant, or deny a variance. 

Mr. Peter LaPolice seeking reappointment to the Zoning Board of Adjustment met with the Selectmen.  He said the three main reasons he was seeking reappointment was that the Town needed the volunteerism, he had served on the Board eight years, and he believed his voting record was good since there hadn’t been any negative feedback.  Mr. Bergeron asked Mr. LaPolice if he would be able to keep an open mind and base his decision on the information gathered at the meetings.  Mr. LaPolice said, with certainty, that he kept an open mind since he had no interests in Town, other than being a citizen.  He said that he had learned through experience (when he was an alternate) to review the cases at the point that the applicant presented the case.  Mr. McDevitt questioned Mr. LaPolice about a particular case and wanted to know why he had voted as he did.  Mr. LaPolice said that he could not speak to the specific case due to the case load over the past few years.  He discussed the fact that there was no statute that says the Board should review who is applying, and why they are applying.  He said there had been some case law that provided guidance, but in his opinion, it should not be the deciding factor for the Board.  He said that the Board had debated the issue and done research into the issue.  He said if the Board should be taking certain things into account he welcomed feedback from the Selectmen.  Mr. Lynde gave an example of a case and asked what basis a variance would be voted.  Mr. LaPolice said that certain cases were heavily debated over the past few years.  He discussed his reasons for granting variances, particularly when reviewing conforming and non-conforming lots.  He welcomed input from the community, and the Selectmen.  Mr. Bergeron asked if the Board would be following direction given by the Selectmen.  Mr. LaPolice said the Board was independent, but felt that there may be something in the purview of the Selectmen to have decisions explained. 

Ms. Cindy Ronning seeking an alternate position to the Zoning Board of Adjustment met with the Selectmen.  She said the reason for coming forward was to become more involved with the Town.  She said that she understood about development and subdivisions.  It was her belief that each lot required 200ft. of frontage and the acreage of the lot did not matter.  Mr. Bergeron asked Ms. Ronning if she understood the proceedings of the Board.  Ms. Ronning said that she had attended some meetings and had been reviewing the minutes to gain a better understanding of the Board.  Mr. Bergeron asked Ms. Ronning if she would be able to keep an open mind and base his decision on the information gathered at the meetings.  Ms. Ronning said that she would keep an open mind when reviewing cases.  Mr. Bergeron asked how she would handle a situation if someone from outside the Board wanted to discuss a case.  Ms. Ronning said that a person could not persuade her vote.  Mr. Danevich wanted to know if Ms. Ronning understood that she would need to step down if her real estate firm were involved in a particular case.  Ms. Ronning said she would step down in the event of a possible conflict.  Mr. McDevitt asked how Ms. Ronning could avoid the appearance of an impropriety since she handled a lot of local real estate business.  Ms. Ronning said that the Board was different from the Planning Board and noted if builders she worked with came before the Board, she would step down.  Mr. Lynde asked if she would be available to meet with the Town attorney to discuss the nature of the Board.  Ms. Ronning answered yes.  She said that the Board needed strict guidelines to follow. 

Mr. Danevich said that he reserved his comments due to the fact that he had recently been appointed as the Selectmen’s Representative to the Board of Adjustment.  He said that he was very familiar with the goings on of the Board because kept up with the review of the minutes for the past few years.  He said through his position on the Planning Board, he was able to see the direct effects of the Board’s decision with applications seeking approval.  He said that it was not always ‘black and white’ for a variance to be granted, and the spirit and intent of the ordinance had to be taken into consideration with every case.  He discussed his understanding of why certain variances had recently been granted.  

Conservation Commission -

Mr. Bob Yarmo seeking reappointment to the Conservation Commission met with the Selectmen.  He said there were goals that had not yet been met, and he would like to help Conservation obtain the goals that were set up.  Mr. Danevich asked for a commitment to have the meeting minutes caught up and posted for the public.  Mr. Yarmo said that the meeting minutes had been submitted to the Planning Department.  Mr. Bergeron asked if there were any other open positions for Conservation.  Mr. Yarmo said that there were two full member positions that could be filled, as well as alternate positions.  He discussed the items he hoped Conservation could accomplish.  Mr. McDevitt asked that consideration be given to ground water protection.  Mr. Yarmo said that a ground water analysis had been done and the hazards had been identified.  He said that a road salt analysis had also been done, which needed additional work.  He said for effectiveness, volunteers were needed.  He discussed the lack of staff support by the Planning Department.  He believed there was also a need for full-time code enforcement.  Mr. McDevitt noted that a plan was being reviewed in connection with the organization of the Planning Department. 

Nashua Regional Planning Commission -

Mr. Tom Collins seeking appointment as a commissioner to the Nashua Regional Planning Commission met with the Selectmen.  He said he would like the opportunity to compare Pelham to other towns to help better our community with the surrounding.  Mr. McDevitt said one role of a commissioner was to keep an eye on available funds that the Town may be eligible to receive.  Mr. Collins said he would review how to obtain funds and find out how/why neighboring towns received funds. 

Planning Board -

Ms. Mary Robin Bousa seeking a permanent position to the Planning Board met with the Selectmen.  She said that she had been on the Board for approximately one and one half years and believed that her experience was beneficial.  She said that she was a Transportation Engineer with 17 years experience.  She noted that she had also volunteered on sub-committees to the Board, one was to help update the subdivision regulations, and second was the Cul-de-sac Committee.  She said that she was currently helping to draft the RFQ for engineering services, and also was performing an independent traffic review of the Town center traffic study.  Mr. Lynde asked Ms. Bousa if she felt the subdivision regulations were adequate.  Ms. Bousa said there were some holes that could be updated based upon recent court decisions.  Mr. Lynde said one disappointment of the Cul-de-sac Committee was that the opinion of the Safety Committee was not obtained.  Ms. Bousa believed that the Safety Committee was asked for their opinion, but no response was given.  She said that the Cul-de-sac Committee moved forward with what they felt was right for the Town.  Mr. Lynde asked under what circumstances the requirements should be waived.  Ms. Bousa didn’t feel that the current requirements needed to be waived.  She felt that safety features had been implemented to help achieve the goal of future connectivity of roads.  Mr. Lynde asked when waivers should be granted.  Ms. Bousa said she was not in favor of waivers and believed that circumstances were individual to each application. 

Mr. Bill Scanzani seeking reappointment to the Planning Board met with the Selectmen.  He said he would like to have the continuity of the Board continue.  Mr. Lynde discussed a subdivision application and questioned the reason for Mr. Scanzani’s vote.  Mr. Scanzani discussed the application in question, and provided the reason for his vote.  Mr. Lynde discussed the process for determining the current cul-de-sac requirements and asked why more weight isn’t applied to the comments provided by the people involved with the safety of the Town.  Mr. Scanzani noted that he was not a member of the Cul-de-sac Committee.  He noted further that the Planning Board voted as a whole to approve the new cul-de-sac regulations.  He discussed the history of the cul-de-sac regulations and pointed out that many towns struggle with cul-de-sac regulations.  He said that connectivity throughout the Town wouldn’t have happened if the Planning Board had kept the original cul-de-sac regulations and used Irene Drive and Spring Street as examples.  He ended by saying that long-term road connectivity was a concern of the Planning Board.  Mr. Lynde asked Mr. Scanzani if he felt the subdivision regulations were adequate.  Mr. Scanzani agreed with Ms. Bousa’s assessment that there were some areas that needed work.  Mr. Lynde asked how Mr. Scanzani felt about granting waivers if there was no benefit to the Town.  Mr. Scanzani said that a majority of waivers were for cul-de-sac length and second were for well radiuses within the lots.  Mr. Lynde then discussed road slopes.  He asked Mr. Scanzani if he felt slopes should be waivered past 12% and if comment should be taken by the Safety Committee.  Mr. Scanzani said after review of the topography, there may be certain instances when a developer can’t stick to the 10%.  In such instances, the Planning Board would have to weigh issues such as connectivity to a neighboring community, and decide what the benefits would be to the Town.  Mr. Lynde wanted to know how the Safety Committee’s comments would be weighed compared to connectivity.  Mr. Scanzani said that the information would be weighed against the review of the Town’s engineering company. 

Sherburne Hall Committee -

Mr. Tom Collins seeking appointment to the Sherburne Hall Committee asked what the term length would be.  Mr. Lynde believed it would be a short term.  Mr. McDevitt said the committee would review the possible uses of the space, with the money available.  He said more work could be done through donations.  Mr. Collins asked what type of functions would be held in Sherburne Hall.  Mr. McDevitt said one of the functions of the committee would be to obtain public input and recommend designs.  Mr. Collins asked when the project should be completed.  Mr. McDevitt said that there was no goal set at this time.  He suggested once the committee was formed, that they come back and have a discussion with the Selectmen.     

Ms. Glennie Edwards seeking appointment to the Sherburne Hall Committee met with the Selectmen.  She discussed her experience, which she felt would benefit the committee.  She said her goal would be to make the space pleasing to all.  She hoped that the committee would move forward with ideas and not become round-table discussions.   

Ms. Laurie A. Hogan seeking appointment to the Sherburne Hall Committee met with the Selectmen.  She said she was interested preserving the hall due to its historical value.  She felt that Sherburne Hall could be used as a meeting place to draw people back together into the community.    

Mr. Charlie Mooskian seeking appointment to the Sherburne Hall Committee met with the Selectmen.  He discussed his experience and wanted the opportunity to contribute his skills.   

Ms. Charlene Takesian seeking appointment to the Sherburne Hall Committee met with the Selectmen.  She felt the idea was good to create a gathering place.  Being the Town Treasurer, she informed that people could make donations to the Sherburne Hall Fund at the First Essex Bank located at the Pelham Plaza. 

Ms. Joyce Mason seeking appointment to the Sherburne Hall Committee met with the Selectmen.  She said she decided to apply due to nostalgia; her four children attended the school.  She said that based upon improvements to the current meeting space, she knew the opportunities for improvement that Sherburne Hall had.   

Cable Television Advisory Committee (‘CTAC’) -

Ms. Holly Saurman seeking reappointment to CTAC met with the Selectmen.  She said that she enjoyed serving with the current members and would like to continue with the committee to see the difficult issues that were being worked on completed.     

Mr. Lynde reviewed the positions that were available: Board of Adjustment - several alternates; CTAC - two positions for three years, and one position for three years; Planning Board - alternates; Recreation - two positions for three years; Conservation - alternates; NRPC - terms to be reviewed by Mr. Gaydos. 

Mr. Bergeron requested reappointment to the Southern New Hampshire Hazardous Material Mutual Aide District.  The Selectmen did not oppose Mr. Bergeron continuing his appointment.   

OLD BUSINESS

Municipal Building

Sherburne Fields - Mr. McDevitt updated the Selectmen with the results of the Municipal Building Committee’s meeting of last Thursday regarding Sherburne fields.  He said the Committee was moving in the direction to have the space used for low-impact multi-use community recreation and not a place for large fields/team recreation and would make a recommendation to the Selectmen at a later date.  He said the Razorbacks planned to use the fields in 2003, and would possibly need to use the fields in 2004, due to a delay in obtaining a grant for Muldoon Park. 

Application for payment to Bread Loaf - Mr. Gaydos was in receipt of the application for payment of design services, which represented 90% completion was in the amount of $13,500.  He was also in receipt of the application for payment of construction, which represented 77% completion, was in the amount of $724,564 (which amount includes $58,357 for a backup generator).  He circulated the manifest for Selectmen’s signature. 

Completion date - Mr. McDevitt said that the work was on schedule and approximate completion was expected for June 2003. 

Robin Road/Honey Lane

Mr. Lynde: Let me read you a letter from the Planning Director, to start it off, if we have any further comments, we’ll go from there.  I have physically reviewed the 100-Acre Woods subdivision streets Irene Drive, Honey Lane and Robin Road on a regular basis over the last five months as well as the plan approved by the Planning Board.  The issues, however minor that are contributing to the ongoing controversy are due to improper lot grading and driveways not having been constructed as per plan, not because of roadways and associated drainage were constructed incorrectly.  Because driveway placement and lot construction are integral to the functionality of the drainage, these deficiencies should have been addressed at the time the Certificate of Occupancy were issued.  In my experience with topographical, ledge and wetland issues, such as this one are always a challenge.  Although it’s my opinion that the project, as constructed complies with the approved subdivision plan, the project was reviewed and approved throughout the entire construction sequence by the Town’s engineers, I would be more than happy to have the current Town engineer review the project if the Board so desires.’  So we promised you a report of the status and that’s the report we got from the Planning Director.  Ok.  Is there any comment from the Board at this point on that? Do you have any problems with what she said? 

Mr. Danevich: Problem? No.  I question where, and what action we are taking. 

Mr. Lynde: We haven’t taken any action on that.  The question is, is there any action to take?  And, that’s where we are at right now.  My original impression was that the drainage was done wrong, and according to this, the drainage was put in correctly; however a driveway was located improperly as originally proposed on the subdivision plans the driveway was not put where it was proposed by the contractor who put the house in, I guess...and he’s out of there.  So, that’s the statement from the Planning Director and I don’t know what else to say.  I guess I’d welcome any comment from.....

Mr. Leo Dougherty:  (45 Robin Road) We’ve heard this type of conversation before, you know, we are aware there are problems, and there are differences between the Town and the developer, does that move us forward another step?  I’m not sure. 

Mr. Lynde: I would say it does, because I thought there was an open issue down there, but this would imply none with the developer.

Mr. Danevich: That’s not the case.  This statement has been made before; the Planning Board has rejected it, based on footage and pictures from Mr. Fraize, whose property was affected.  I have great respect for all the Honey Lane and Robin Road residents.  The point where it comes down to is...just to provide a quick history of the piece... all subdivisions should not have a negative impact on an abutter, here’s a case where it did, the drain was not put in the correct place, the water does not flow as it’s supposed to and there is an increase in the amount of water in Mr. Fraize’s backyard as a result of improper grading and placement of the drainage swale.  We have that on a statement from CLD as the former....with the shift in staff there are now a difference in opinions.  We have conflicting data.  So I think it will resolve probably to this Board to fix it.  The Planning Board over the last two years has refused to accept it because the correction involves the Town road right-of-way and releasing the bond.  We do have confidential legal statements that have been provided by Town Counsel, that I would hope this Board takes a look at before making any judgment, and reviews some of the comments that were made in that because it involves the correction, and how to go about correcting it.  But what it really comes down to is an impasse and whether it’s going to happen, or not, and whether or not we proceed on revoking the bond, or not, to get the problem corrected...or whether or not this Board through a recommendation by the Town engineer, or the Road Agent, that says this is how they could fix it, that we could come to satisfaction with all parties, and basically move forward.  That’s probably the course of least pain; and revoking the bond could take anywhere from twelve to twenty-four months before we see any actual cash and the residents there would very unfortunately go through maybe two more winters of non-funding as a private road, which is, I think unacceptable.  So, we’ve come to a point we’re starting to get to a conclusion, this goes way back before Mr. Mitchell also, to Mr. Messina, is when the problem originated...in that timeframe and how to go about correcting it.  So, what I would like to do, or I think where the Planning Board would like to do is get to a point of what it would take to get this thing fixed so we can get all the parties in agreement.  Backyards stop flooding.  The Robin Road resident at the end of the cul-de-sac stops having water across the driveway flood his....basically run down the side.  If you’ve ever seen it in a rainstorm you’d know what I mean.  I have pictures of when those situations have happened.  That’s the jest of it, is how do we get to the point where we can get it corrected, move on, and get it onto the ballot for next year, for acceptance.

Mr. Gaydos: Well, I guess obviously you are very familiar with this, but we have to kind of start....and the reason I had asked for this is because we have to kind of start at the beginning.  You are indicating that the road was not built according to plan.  The Planning Director says it was built according to plan, so I think that’s where we have to start.  And then, you know, then we have to look at...was the plan...if it wasn’t built according to plan, did the engineer that was reviewing it raise a flag, or did they sign off?  And then it goes back to the question that the Chairman had asked me earlier last week, which was, if it was not built according to plan, if it was built according to plan would it be satisfactory?  Before we can even get that far down the line, I think you have to start with....what do we have?  What’s there?  All I can tell you is that the Planning Director says it is built according to plan; it’s the improper lot grading and driveways...

Mr. Danevich: Stop right there... therefore not built to plan, which includes lot grading and driveways. 

Mr. Lynde: So wait a minute, hold on. What I read out of this is that if I take...a road was put in with drainage, and initially thought that the drainage was put in the wrong place, and this statement says it was put in the right place, the drainage, and the road.  What it also says is one of the lots; apparently, I don’t know if its two lots, or just one lot, had a driveway put in, which was inconsistent with what the original plans were. 

Mr. Danevich: And that had a negative impact on drainage.

Mr. Lynde: So you agree with those statements?

Mr. Danevich: Absolutely.  I don’t agree that the drains are in the right place, it’s off by twenty-two and a half feet.   

Mr. Lynde: Alright.  So we need to resolve that. 

Mr. Danevich: Mr. Mitchell has the memo saying that it was off by twenty-two and a half feet, and I believe we can dig that out. 

Mr. Gaydos:  I need an engineer I think to...

Mr. McDevitt: I think that’s where we’re going. 

Mr. Lynde: Yeah, that’s where we’re going; I agree we need to resolve this.  I think the other issue, and I don’t know, this is my conjecture, is once we have a subdivision approved, and let’s say a subdivision is approved and they put the road in and did it perfectly right, and they sell the lots and the person who has that lot puts a driveway where he feels like it and it gets approved that way, I mean that’s what I was reading into this....understand, we still have the issue to deal with whether it’s off or not, but we’ll resolve that...whose responsibility is it then?  In other words, can we...it seems to me that if a contractor puts a house in with a driveway located differently than on original plans, it’s not the developer’s issue is it? Becomes a Contractor - Town issue, I think. 

Mr. Danevich: It’s not that clear cut. 

Mr. Lynde: Okay. 

Mr. Danevich: If it’s a state road, it’s the state...if it’s Town, it’s the homeowner, or the owner of that lot. 

Mr. Lynde: Right.  Okay, so I think that might be part of the thing.. that I thought we could do it all tonight, but we didn’t. 

Mr. Gaydos: We have to go so far, and then we can go to the next set of questions. 

Mr. Lynde: We need to... this goes back to a discussion we had the other day.  We need to clarify was the road and the drainage put in accordance to plan...first question, because only on that basis could you talk about revoking the bond, I think.  I think, and you can ponder that..whether.. if you think I’m wrong.

Mr. Danevich: I’ll ponder.

Mr. Lynde: Okay. Good.  And the next question that I asked at the time was if it was put in wrong, was it signed off, as being okay.  And then the third question was if it was put in wrong and it was signed off okay, does it work.  Does it still meet the same criteria that it had to meet when it was designed the other way?  Those are the three questions I asked, I thought this was the answer...we still need to resolve.  The first question is, and we get an engineer on this thing and resolve where the drainage is supposed to be..right?  We agree with that?  Yeah, make sure that is done. 

Mr. McDevitt: We have to have an engineer look at this.  We have to. 

Mr. Danevich: The cost to fix the problem, to move forward is somewhere between $300 and $5000, that’s the range.  The high end of the range was a quote by Mr. Fraize, to basically bring in several loads of dirt, re-grade it, basically you are done.  Mr. Foss suggested, on the low end, taking a back hoe, creating a drainage swale, to basically re-route around the property to get a better water flowing channel, and that wouldn’t affect the road, and we would again be able to move it.  The problem is, if you do nothing, and you accept what was written, you’ve got a negative impact on an abutter as a result of a subdivision, which I think the Town would be held liable in this particular case because, was it, or wasn’t it inspected correctly, I don’t know.

Mr. Lynde: The main thing we want to do, is to resolve the issue of the road, developer, alright because the issue there is can we go ahead and accept this road, which is what these people are asking us.  So we need to put that one to bed, and then we’ll resolve, if there is a problem how we go about fixing it.  The gentleman in back, would you like to speak?

Mr. Scott Orlando: (74 Robin Road) I’m the one at the end of the cul-de-sac.  I abut Mr. Fraize’s property and Mr. Morris as well.  What my problem is, if the road was built to plan and they put the drainage in the correct locations, it appears to me in my location that it’s not doing the job it’s supposed to be doing.  Next door there’s a drainage catch basin there, but all the water runs in between the house and the catch basin down along the property line, on mine and Neil over here as well and water collects on his property.  So that catch basin is not doing the job it is supposed to be doing because the water just runs off the road and doesn’t meet that location.  The other problem I have is the cul-de-sac itself, the end of the cul-de-sac, most of the road is pitched toward my house, but there’s no drainage alleviation that I can see, to get off my property because once it’s going to hit that road, everything is going to come toward my house.  I sand building up from the winter right now and all along the edge of my property.  So, again, there is no way that the water that comes off from the hill, the Irene Drive hill down this way, there’s no way it’s going to make it to the swale at the back of my property.  So that’s the main problem I have.  I met with the director before Amy, I think it was Dave Brouillet and he recommended that there should have been a catch basin in front of my house to channel all water off the road into that area and get it over to that catch basin.  Another thing too, when I went down to the Town Hall, I was shown a letter from, I think it was Mr. Mahoney’s lawyer with stipulations of certain criteria that would be met so that the road would be approved, and one of those stipulations was that he would work with the builder of my house to re-grade my property to try and alleviate any water issues I may have.  That was never taken care of, but if that was one of the stipulations that the road would be approved by the Town engineer, then that was never met.  I don’t know how the road got approved if these conditions weren’t met prior to.  These are the issues I have with the road.  I really don’t want it approved, until these things are taken care of.

Mr. Lynde: Okay.  Alright. 

Mr. Danevich: Do you want me to add to it?  What happened, and this goes back to Clay Mitchell timeframe...I do believe there was a change order that went through because of a ledge outcropping up in that area.  You can still see the ledge outcropping.  It changed the road pitch.  The original plan on his lot, which is different than Mr. Fraize down on Honey Lane, correct? You’re the one on top? 

Ms. Denise Carboney:  He’s on Noella. 

Mr. Danevich: On the backside of Mr. Fraize’s property?

Mr. Orlando: Yes.  I’m on the other side of Noella.  I’m the one with the catch basin. 

Mr. Danevich: The plan originally called for sheet drainage, which does not put in the bail, but when you change the pitch, what it did was actually increased the amount of sheet drainage that was coming into his land.  Increased the velocity, changed the drainage, it should have been re-graded different, or the plan should have been updated, and I don’t believe it was. 

Mr. Lynde: Charity, when you do the minutes, would you make it a point of doing this discussion verbatim?  Alright, so we have it in the record and so that we don’t repeat all this stuff again, because I feel like I’ve repeated all this stuff before.  Mr. Gaydos will provide an action plan to get this thing resolved. 

Mr. McDevitt: It’s not clear to me what that is.

Mr. Lynde: Well I think it involves resolving...there’s several issues I heard discussed, one is the location of the drainage, alright....an we agreed that we need an engineer to.....

Mr. Danevich: Let me backup, I think the goals of what we are trying to get done...and you’re piece is who pays...the goals are to get the lots corrected that you have drainage.  I believe there are three; two of them are part of a new subdivision and Mr. Fraize which is part of an existing home from the 1950’s.  Once you understand that piece, what caused it?  Did the drainage basically get done correct?  You know, if it was done correct and it didn’t work then you could basically pursue a different type of path in that piece.  The ultimate goal is to get the lots corrected and get it accepted as a Town road.  Then resolving the other issue is who pays for it. 

Mr. Lynde: I agree.

Mr. McDevitt: It just isn’t clear to me how we going to have that happen.

Mr. Lynde: It isn’t clear to me either, and that’s why I asked Charity to do this verbatim and I’m going to look for Tom to decipher all this.  Because I’m not sure, and maybe....

Mr. Gaydos: I think verifying....we have two opinions; we have two people who have looked at the same thing and say that it’s different.  Then you have to decide, we have to have an independent person go out and look and say is what’s on the plan, what’s there, either it is, or it isn’t.  Was the engineering firm that was paid to sign off, did they say that was done according to plan, or didn’t they?  It’s not a question of who pays, because then the next question is - what’s the resolution?  I would hate to authorize someone to do a quick fix and find out that we moved the problem from here, to here.  We need to have an overall comprehensive plan about what’s going to be done?  Is it going to work?  And is everybody going to be happy with the end result?  Then the question is, if we are into this not being resolved until next Town meeting, which I don’t believe is the case, how do we resolve it then to their satisfaction?  These people’s ultimate problem is in October, November and December when it’s snowing do they have the same problem that they had this last year?  That to me, if I’m not mistaken, is at the core of why you are here tonight.  So we’ve got a series of questions that have to be addressed, and I think we have to just come up with what the procedure is going to be in terms of the priority, in terms of addressing those. 

Mr. Lynde: Very good.  Any further discussion?

Mr. Orlando: If you do have an engineer come out and he looks at the plan, and it was built to plan, that’s one thing, if it was built and it works, that’s another.  I think you need the opinion from both, not just that who ever designed the subdivision built it the way it was supposed to be, but then, if he built it the way it was supposed to be, but it doesn’t work, that’s another problem. 

Mr. Gaydos: The point is that those designs are brought in, and the Town has an engineer that reviews that and says.. hey, your design works.. okay, that’s a problem right there, because that’s what we pay these people to do.  Now, if what was built, was what was designed, and signed off on, that’s the problem that you just referred to.  If what everybody agreed was going to be built, is not what was built; now we have another problem because we have a site engineer that’s supposed to be there to verify. 

Mr. Lynde: You understand what needs to be done.

Mr. Gaydos: Yes.

Mr. Lynde: When do you think you can come back to us with a plan of action?

Mr. Gaydos: I’d like to have an e-mail to you folks pretty quick.  And then just follow it through as progress....and then you could...

Mr. Lynde: Could you give us a report in two weeks?

Mr. Gaydos: I would hope to have information before then. 

Ms. Denise Carboney: (9 Honey Lane) I live next door to Neil (Morris).  The back of my property and I addressed this one other time at the Planning meeting....I do have a runoff that goes to the back of my property that comes all the way down the side and collects to the side of my property where there is a, I don’t know, make-shift drain, which is just a black pipe that comes up from out of the ground with some rocks that were stuck over it, that kind of goes under ground and ends up in Neil’s driveway.  The water just collects, like even right now, if you come to my property right now, I call Lake Carboney because there’s a huge area.  My question is, we have a catch basin across the street from us that, I’ve been out there all the time and there is no water in it, ever, ever, ever.  It collects in my property.  I don’t know...if the hole to where the water comes out from....how does it get there?  It’s obviously is coming from my property, which the developer put in this make-shift thing that drains over to Neil’s property which is causing a lot of his water problems which are collecting, because unfortunately his driveway is on the wrong side of his house.  My only other request is that...I’ve been calling for twenty-two months to get a street sign, and still don’t have one.  We did have one, but it got stolen.   

Mr. Danevich: It was stolen.  I’ve seen it; I have a picture of it. 

Ms. Carboney: It was there.

Mr. Lynde: What’s the name of the street?

Ms. Carboney: Honey Lane.

Mr. Lynde: That’s the problem. 

Ms. Carboney: It’s hard to get things delivered to your house when there’s no street sign.

There were a few moments of chatter about the missing street sign.  Apparently the post had been pulled from the ground the sign was removed. 

Ms. Carboney: I do have water that is on my property that comes from Robin Road that collects off to the side and causes a lot of Neil’s water problems. 

Mr. Neil Morris: (23 Honey Lane) I live between Scott and behind me, the Carboneys, who live to my left, and Mr. Fraize’s property which I abut also.  I get a lot of the water, which comes on my property from Scott.  The drainage that comes from the circle (cul-de-sac) and I also have, in front of my driveway, I think I’m the one that had the driveway put on the wrong side by the builder, where my driveway is, there is drainage... right next to it and there’s a make-shift drain that comes from the Carboney’s that goes underneath my driveway to that, which doesn’t seem to work well.  There’s usually standing water at the end of my driveway and during the wintertime it freezes.  It covers most of the driveway.  I just wanted to make sure it gets resolved. 

Mr. Lynde: Okay.  Thank you.

Mr. Mike Lundeen: (66 Robin Road) I just wanted to go on the record that I live next to Scott (Orlando) and the runoff that he was talking about between the catch basin that doesn’t catch any water is my front yard and house.  I’d say 50% of the runoff that comes down Robin Road goes through my front yard, or is on the other side of the little crown of road that goes down to the cul-de-sac and gets into Scotts driveway.  So I think a lot of Neil’s water comes through my front yard into his yard.       

Mr. Gaydos: I’m sorry...what was your name again?

Mr. Lundeen: Mike Lundeen.

Mr. Lynde: Alright, anything else?  Thank you. 

Mr. McDevitt: What are we going to do, get back to them, or tell them to come see us in a month?

Mr. Lynde: We are going to have an updated report and we’ll have an action plan.  It sounds like this is multi-dimensional. 

Mr. Danevich: It’s not easy, and this is why the Planning Board did not recommend it for Town vote.  You’ve got four known lots with drainage issues. 

Mr. Lynde:  It almost seems like we need an engineer to come up with a design solution for this thing, to resolve some of these issues.  Then figure out whose going to pay. 

Mr. McDevitt: If you get into.....I’m not privy to the information you have from Counsel, but if you get into going back to the developer, whether through bond revocation or whatever, you’re going to need engineering review anyway.  It seems to me no matter what you do, you’ll need an engineer.  The question I have...who pays the engineer?

Mr. Gaydos:  I think we’ve got to put the money on the table to get it done. 

Mr. McDevitt: Where’s it come from?

Mr. Derby: And then chase for it from the bond. 

Mr. Lynde: It seems to me that if...let me state it, I’m not sure if it’s true or not...but it seems to me that if the end result is the thing was done incorrectly, we would have a right to recover our costs.

Mr. Gaydos: Absolutely.

Mr. Lynde: Okay.  That’s it.

Mr. Danevich: I think we are all in agreement.

The Selectmen nodded there heads.

Mr. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman...we can look forward to an update some time in the near future?

Mr. Lynde: Yes.  I would say in either two to four weeks, hopefully in two weeks we’ll have an update.

Mr. Dougherty: Do you want us to come back?

Mr. Lynde: You are welcome to come back.  We will do it in public session what the update is.  You can come back and listen to us, or watch it on TV.  You are always welcome.

Mr. Danevich: Call to make sure it’s on the agenda. 

Mr. Lynde: The next public meeting will be April 15th, and the one after will be April 29th. 

Mr. Derby: You’ll probably see the engineer in the area and you’ll know they are working on it.  It means you should have an answer shortly thereafter. 

Lynde/Takesian Building Permit Application

Mr. Lynde stepped down.  As acting Chairman, Mr. McDevitt held this portion of the meeting.  He said the Selectmen had previously discussed and decided to review the road, which he and Mr. Derby did.  Primarily the width of the road was reviewed.  Mr. Derby said it was difficult to determine what was there due to the snow.  He suggested re-reviewing the site this weekend, since some of the neighbors still had concerns.  Mr. McDevitt asked what the general direction of the Board was.  There were no comments.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Eve Hamblett, and her son Mr. Richard Horner of Jeremy Hill Road met with the Selectmen to discuss her concerns.  She felt there was some confusion and unanswered issues surrounding the application.  She said had the abutters known that the application was going to be discussed at the March 4, 2003 meeting the abutters would have attended.  She understood that only the Selectmen had the authority to open, or close a Class VI road.  Ms. Hamblett asked if the maintenance agreement had been recorded in the Registry of Deeds as discussed by Attorney DeCarolis at the Planning Board’s meeting of January 6, 2003.  Mr. McDevitt said the Selectmen had not yet voted to allow Mr. Lynde and Ms. Takesian to apply for a building permit.  He said if the Selectmen voted, it would be subject to the property owner recording a declaration at the Registry of Deeds. 

Ms. Hamblett felt that the wetlands issue, and environmental impact with opening the road should be addressed.  She said through a discussion with Mr. Brian Hoate (January 30, 2003) with the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forest he suggested if the upgrading of the road conflicts with wetlands and creates erosion issues with the pond, a wetland permit must be obtained by the applicant before proceeding.  She said the road came within 15ft. of her pond.  Ms. Hamblett said that she listed her property concerns in a letter addressed to the Selectmen dated January 19, 2003. 

Ms. Hamblett felt that the question of access should also be clarified.  She said that Mr. Lynde had access to the proposed property from his current parcel.  She believed that a shared driveway would be created by opening the road because of a parcel across from Mr. Lynde, owned by Mr. Ron Jacques.  She requested that the issues be resolved before a decision was made.  She said the abutters, Steck, Silverman, Francis, Thompson, Hamblett are opposed to the opening of the Class VI road. 

Mr. Horner asked the Selectmen to consider alternative options for access, other than through the Class VI road.  He felt consideration should be given to accessing the parcel through the parcel currently owned by Mr. Lynde as well as possibly through an alternate section of Jeremy Hill Road.  He said if the road was allowed to be put in, and there were further subdivision, pressure would be placed on the wetlands.  Mr. Horner said currently there was a lot of privacy in the area, and was concerned with long-term, if more houses would be added. 

Mr. McDevitt clarified the status of the road, and noted that it was a public right-of-way, and would never be a shared driveway.  He said every group of abutters is offended when someone builds houses behind them.  He said a person could not be denied their property rights because the abutters feel they have a greater right to privacy.  Mr. McDevitt discussed the alternatives suggested by Mr. Horner and was concerned with trading one set of disturbed abutters, for another set of disturbed abutters.  He pointed out that there was already a road in place (beside the wetland).  Ms. Hamblett noted that Mr. Lynde would still have the means to access his property through his current parcel.  Mr. Danevich said that the Planning Board felt the most desirable way was to come done the Class VI road.  He said that crossing his own parcel would create an easement issue if the parcel were sold.  He said that the Class VI access would not cause a wetland impact, per testimony given at the Planning Board meeting.  He noted that a memo was drafted to the Selectmen after the Planning Board meeting which outlined a list of conditions and summarized the hearing.  Ms. Hamblett asked who would define the location and width of the road.  She did not feel it was her responsibility. 

Mr. Lynde didn’t feel that ownership of an abutting parcel was incidental and shouldn’t be an issue.  He said after researching the Town records, he found no mention of the road being closed.  He said Mr. Derby brought up the fact that a portion had been closed from Fletcher’s driveway, up to the tower road, per Town meeting in 1934.  He said the other portion was never closed, but had fallen into disuse, and therefore became a Class VI road.  Ms. Hamblett said there were bars currently in place.  Mr. Lynde understood, through a conversation with the Fire Chief, that the state put the bars up, due to vandalism, at the time the fire tower ceased usage.  He said that he had no intention of changing the road width, which is determined by the stone walls.  Ms. Hamblett said the stone wall was not necessarily the boundary.  Mr. Lynde said that he would be using the same traveled way, as was used to access the fire tower.  He said the use would consist of the traffic he would generate living there, except for during construction.  He said if he received permission, he would be signing on to maintain the road, not disturb the pond, ensure the culver remains in tact/or upgrade if necessary.  He said he also wanted privacy also.  Ms. Hamblett was concerned with the future, if the parcel was sold and further subdivided, and making the roadway a Class V road.  Mr. Lynde said the Selectmen would have to approve of the road status change, and there would be a process of review for any subdivision.  He said his request was to place one house on twenty-nine acres.  He went on to discuss the culvert.  Mr. Danevich noted that at the Planning Board meeting the culvert was discussed and it was understood if the culvert were damaged, Mr. Lynde would replace it.  Mr. Hamblett wanted to know who would be responsible if her pong were damaged.  Mr. Lynde said if he, or someone working for him damaged the pond, he would be liable. 

Mr. Danevich said that the only permits required, or needed was a building permit.  He said that all the normal permit procedure would need to be followed (i.e. electrical, building, septic).  Ms. Hamblett questioned if a wetland permit was needed.  Mr. Gaydos said if through the building permit process, a wetland permit was found to be applicable, a permit would need to be obtained by Mr. Lynde.  He went on to discuss the status of the road and what was a permitted use.  Mr. Gaydos said the Selectmen were not asked to make a decision based on future subdivision.  He said the Selectmen were being asked to grant permission to Mr. Lynde to apply for a building permit. 

Mr. Horner wanted to know how it would be determine if the state had precedence over the road and closed it, since the state had installed a gate.  Mr. Gaydos said it was a Town owned road, that the state used to access the fire tower.  Mr. Danevich noted that the applicant addressed the gate issue at the Planning Board meeting and the applicant had agreed to relocate the gate, beyond his proposed the driveway. 

Mr. Bob Francis, 164 Jeremy Hill Road found that some towns had additional ordinances relative to accessing parcels over Class VI roads.  He asked if Pelham had any such ordinances.  Mr. McDevitt answered no, not outside state law.  Mr. Gaydos said the Selectmen would have the latitude to place restrictions, but there was no ordinance.  Mr. Francis questioned how power would be brought into the facility, and who had jurisdiction.  He wanted to know who would be liable.  Mr. McDevitt believed utilities would be handled in the same manner as with a Class V road.  Mr. Danevich discussed how utilities were brought into new homes.  Mr. Francis wanted to know if the power lines had to stay over the Class VI road.  Mr. Gaydos answered yes.  Mr. Francis asked what the width of the road was.  He believed there were further issues regarding the road that needed to be resolved.  Mr. Gaydos said that utility issues should be discussed with the power company.  He said the issue before the Selectmen was using a public road to allow someone to make application for a building permit on their property.  He said if allowed, the applicant would sign an agreement stating that the Town was not liable for the road.  He said it was understood that there would be further issues to be addressed in the final agreement.  Mr. Francis noted that at a past meeting, the Fire Chief said not in agreement to granting the proposed, specifically because of the width of the road and the turn-around radius.  Mr. Gaydos said it was his understanding that the Fire Chief was referring to the road in its current state, and that he would like some clearing done and a turn around put in, which would then make it acceptable. 

Mr. McDevitt asked Mr. Francis if the roadway width was one his major concern.  Mr. Francis said the road, the culvert and the possible erosion were his concerns. 

Mr. Paul Steck, Jeremy Hill Road questioned the ownership of the road.  After review of the Bernard Waugh lecture series regarding old Class VI roads, it may be that the Town never owned the road and it was an established right-of-way over the abutter’s property.  He felt it was important to establish the exact width of the right-of-way.  He believed the Town vote from 1934 was a bit ‘fuzzy’ since it did not give a specific spot, it simply states ‘towards the entrance to the Jeremy lookout station’. 

Mr. McDevitt said he had reviewed topographic maps from 1935 and 1946 that clearly show the road, the Mansfield property and the fire tower road.  He believed that testimony had been given that the Town had maintained the road.  Mr. Derby said that Mr. Fletcher had discussed years back, the work done on the road with regard to gravel and grading.  Mr. Lynde said that the road was a Town road, as much as the other portion of Jeremy Hill Road was a Town road.  He said the definition of the width was between the stone walls.  He noted that he had approximately 750ft. of frontage onto the closed portion, and approximately 750ft on the portion not closed.  He said he would not change the width.  He said he would try and comply as required by the Fire Chief to clear a portion of it so emergency vehicles could get by without any further hindrance.  He said the turn-around would be placed on his own property so the road would not be disturbed, and a cul-de-sac would be added to the Town road.  He discussed the utility poles and noted that they were still standing.  It was his belief that the utility company would be responsible for maintaining the poles. 

Mr. Danevich asked the measurement from Mr. Lynde’s driveway to the point of egress.  Mr. Lynde said it was not yet determined, because they hadn’t decided the house placement yet.  Mr. Danevich asked if the road could be considered an extension of a lengthy cul-de-sac.  Mr. Lynde said it would be approximately 1000ft.  He said the road status would not change; he was only seeking permission for a building permit.  Mr. Danevich wanted to ensure that the same set of rules governing a cul-de-sac was applied to this application.  Mr. Lynde said he was not requesting a cul-de-sac, there was an existing right-of-way. 

Mr. Ken Silverman, 160 Jeremy Hill Road asked about the Fire Chief’s request to have the road upgraded.  He wanted to know if there was any requirement for a road width, other than to get emergency vehicles through.  He asked if the Fire Chief’s letter was available to the public.  Mr. McDevitt answered yes.  Mr. Gaydos believed that the Fire Chief was speaking conceptually and the next steps would have to be taken to define the width.  Mr. Silverman asked if a vote could be taken before the information was gathered.  Mr. Gaydos answered yes. 

Mr. McDevitt asked if the Board wanted to take any further action, or if any further information was wanted.  There was no response.

Mr. Lynde said that he would like a decision.  He believed that the issues raised would be addressed within the process of obtaining a building permit.  He said the width of the road currently averaged 40ft., and all that was needed was approximately 20ft.  He said there was no need to make the road wider than it had been.  He said the power would be dealt directly with the electric company.  He said the issues with the culvert and the pond would be reviewed by the engineer (as part of the plan), at which point it would be determined whether or not he would have to go to the state for a wetland permit. 

Mr. McDevitt closed the discussion to the public and noted that the subject may be brought up at a later time.  He told the members of the public to keep themselves informed of the Selectmen’s agendas.  Mr. Silverman felt the Selectmen should keep the appearance of propriety and keep this particular issue on the agenda.  Mr. McDevitt said it would be added to future agendas, but noted that if Mr. Lynde wanted, he could come forward and discuss the issue during open forum.  He added that Mr. Lynde was a very honest and ethical person. 

Mr. Lynde addressed the comments.  As he stated at a past meeting, he was sensitive about his position as Selectmen, which is why he hired an attorney to remove himself as much as possible from the process.  He said if he was not a Selectman, he would have gone to the Board of Adjustment.  He said there was no impropriety.  He noted the fact that he and his wife had served the Town in both elected and volunteer positions since the 1970’s.  He said he went to great pains to maintain his integrity, and had not done anything to get anything from the Town, and was not asking for anything other than what was due.       

Ms. Charlene Takesian said that she and Mr. Lynde were, if anything, being punished because of their positions.  She said that they were not required to, but had notified the abutters because of their positions.  She said that the request was for one house, on twenty-nine acres; it was the abutters that kept discussing subdivisions.  She said they were seeking privacy, quiet and darkness and were not requesting a subdivision. 

Mr. Danevich reiterated that most of the answers to the concerns would come out during the permitting process.  He noted that the Fire Chief had gone on record, repeatedly and consistently asked for a minimum of 14ft. of paved road width.  He noted that the Planning Board had endorsed the proposed.  He said he supported the request, and asked that the Board to take into consideration the conditions placed/suggested by the Planning Board that accounted for many of the issues being discussed.  He said the only issue before the Selectmen was a request to allow the applicant to proceed with requesting, with that, Mr. Danevich made a motion to approve Mr. Lynde’s and Ms. Takesian’s request to apply for a building permit subject to the (eight) conditions of Planning Board.  Mr. Derby seconded the motion with the stipulation that the road be no less than 20ft., cleared so that the fire trucks could get both in, and out of the parcel. 

Mr. Horner believed the road was approximately the width of a driveway with maybe three or four feet on each side, which equaled approximately 20ft. 

Mr. Danevich reiterated his motion. Mr. Derby seconded the motion with the stipulation that the road be no less than 20ft., cleared so that the fire trucks could get both in, and out of the parcel.  Mr. Danevich asked what would happen if the road was less than 20ft.  Mr. McDevitt said that Mr. Lynde would have to come back before the Selectmen.  Mr. Danevich understood that the road was a two-rod road.  He added that the applicant and their attorney agreed to the (eight) stipulations outlined by the Planning Board.  Mr. Lynde confirmed his agreement with the Planning Board’s stipulations.   

Mr. Lynde rejoined the Selectmen. 

NEW BUSINESS

Bob Tryon - ATV’s

Mr. Bob Tryon, Recreation Director met with the Selectmen to discuss ATV use in Town.  He said that there was a problem, but of all the years, this is the least amount of problem in the past five years.  He said that the Police were currently patrolling the parks and had made recommendations to decrease the problem.  One suggestion was to block a number of the trails in the parks.  He discussed the damage at the parks and on the trails due to ATV’s.  He said that additional signs would be added, trails would be blocked and continued Police patrol should help the situation.  Mr. McDevitt said what ever blockade was placed on the trails should have clear visibility.  Mr. Gaydos said that additional signs would be placed on the trails. 

Mr. McDevitt asked if Mr. Tryon had reviewed the Police Chief’s letter which elaborated the items that should be done to help the effectiveness of prosecution.  Mr. Tryon said that within the next ten days additional signs would be installed.  He felt that the usage of the parks would deter ATV use in the areas. 

Mr. Bob Francis volunteered to help reinstall signage.  He suggested adding a sign, or gate at the Hudson/Pelham boarder to inform people when they were entering the Town.  Mr. Tryon said he had spoken with Hudson and boulders and signs had been added to deter ATV usage. 

Mr. Gaydos asked if the Town had a map of the trail system.  Mr. Tryon said that the Trails Committee would be reviewing the Town and creating a map of the trails within the parks.  Mr. Danevich noted that through the NRPC GIS system, the Town had a GPS map trail system.  He said there were approximately 110 trail miles within the Town.  Mr. McDevitt asked Mr. Tryon to review the Gibson Road area. 

Mr. Bill Scanzani asked if thought had been given to entertaining an ordinance (similar to Methuen, MA) that would ban ATV’s on anything other than the owner’s property.  Mr. Lynde said there was an ordinance that prohibited use on Town property.  Mr. McDevitt believed that the Town could not supercede the state’s laws.  Mr. Danevich said that the Methuen, MA ordinance was being challenge in court in connection with civil rights. 

Mr. Tryon said that the liability issue would be reviewed when placing boulders and random patrols would also continue.  He commended the officers for their diligence when patrolling the parks. 

Mr. Bergeron asked if Hudson was also having problems with ATV’s.  Mr. Tryon said that everyone was having problems; it was not unique to Pelham.  He said that there was a joint effort between Pelham and Hudson.  He said he would discuss the issue with the Police Chief. 

Mr. Francis asked if dirt bikes fell under the same ordinance.  Mr. Tryon said that any motorized vehicle would be subject to the ordinance. 

TOWN ADMNISTRATOR’S REPORT/SELECTMEN’S REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos said that the Library employees were non-union, but the Library Trustees had requested that all employees be eligible for life insurance paid for through a line item in the General Fund.  He said the cost was minimal. 

Mr. Danevich had no committee report, but informed that the data systems for the Municipal Building had now been obtained, acquired and purchased through competitive pricing. 

Mr. Bergeron reported that the Regional Water District Committee met March 27, 2003, information had been provided to the Selectmen.

Mr. Derby said the CIP would meet Thursday at 7pm in which he would suggest they review the list of requested items, so that the Selectmen could become aware of them. 

Mr. McDevitt had no report.

Mr. Lynde noted that the next scheduled meeting would be a non-public session held on April 15, 2003.  He went on to discuss items that would be added to future agendas. 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

Mr. Lynde 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 10:45 pm.  Also present was Mr. Gaydos.

The Board returned to public session at approximately 10:55 pm.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:55 pm.

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary