BOS Minutes 05-07-2004

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

April 27, 2004

APPROVED – May 4, 2004

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENT:

Mr. William McDevitt, Mr. Harold Lynde, Mr. Jean-Guy Bergeron, Mr. Richard Derby

Also present:

ABSENT:

Mr. Tom Gaydos, Town Administrator, members of the p= ress and general public.

Mr. Victor Danevich

&nbs= p;

The Chairman, William McDevitt, opened the meeting at approximately 6:30 pm.

MINUTES RE= VIEW

April 20, 2004=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Derby/Bergeron) To approve the April 20, 2004 meeting mi= nutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The amendments to the minutes were as follows: page 6,= 1^st paragraph – the word ‘ledge’ shall be amended to read ‘alleged’; page 8, 3^rd paragraph – the word ‘Law’ shall be amended to read ‘Loss’.

OPEN FORUM=

Ms. Rebecca Coppin of the National Honor Society exten= ded an invitation to Town and Government employees to attend an appreciation break= fast at Chunky’s on May 19, 2004, 9:30am.

APPOINTMEN= TS

Highway Bi= d Award

Mr. Gaydos informed that Highway Road Agent Don Foss annually put out bids for various products and was recommending PJ Keating = for the paving, fine grading/compacting, tack coat and cape cod berms; Crack Sealing Inc was recommended for the crack sealing bid. Both companies had done work in To= wn in the past.

MOTION:=

(Bergeron/Lynde) To award the paving bids as recomme= nded by Highway Road Agent Don Foss to PJ Keating and Crack Sealing Inc.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carried.

Little League/Razorback Agreement / Softball Agreement

Mr. Gaydos said lighting at Muldoon Field was shared b= etween Little League and the Razorbacks, therefore it was felt that there should be one agreement for such. A cop= y of the agreement was provided to the Selectmen. The agreement states that the Town= will pay for the water all year; when Little League is playing they will pay for= the cost of the lights; when the Razorbacks are playing, they will pay for the = cost of the lights; when no one is playing, the Town will pay for the cost of the lights. Both organizations pr= ovided certificates of insurance and their checks for $1. It was noted that the agreement wa= s the same standard agreement as signed in past years with the exception of the a= dded language regarding the lighting.

Mr. Lynde asked if there was a policy or fee structure= in the event another group wanted to use the fields/lights. He believed that was an issue the = new Park & Recreation Director should address. Mr. Gaydos believed that Park & Recreation would ‘book’ the field and ask that usage be coordin= ated with whatever organization was currently using the field.

The agreement was included in the Selectmen’s ‘to be signed’ folder. <= /span>

Discussion= of Naming Policy Committee and Possible Vote

Mr. McDevitt said six people had applied for appointme= nt to the Naming Policy Committee. = He said if the Selectmen wanted to set up interviews the applicants would be a= sked to attend the next meeting. He asked the Selectmen to consider waiving the interview process and name the applicants to the committee. = There was no opposition to waiving the interview process and naming the applicant= s to the committee.

MOTION:=

(Bergeron/Derby) To appoint Aristotelis Demetroulako= s, Richard Craven, Jack Caynon, Michael Scott, Glennie Edwards, Bonnie Ward = and the Honorable Michael Jones to the Naming Policy Committee for a period of one year.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. Lynde asked if a Selectmen Representative would be appointed. Mr. McDevitt asked= the Selectmen to consider appointing a representative and further discuss if desired.

Conservati= on Interview(s)

Ms. Amy Breault met with the Selectmen regarding her application for appointment to the Conservation Commission. Ms. Breault was currently serving = as an alternate member of Conservation. Mr. Lynde felt Ms. Breault was an asset to the committee and recommended her appointment as a full member.

MOTION:=

(Lynde/Bergeron) To appoint Ms. Amy Breault as a full member to the Conservation Commission effective April 1, 2004 and ending = March 31, 2006.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carried.

Tallant Road<= /st1:PlaceName> Bridge Overview – SEA Engineers Ap= proval of Service Contract Amendment

Mr. Tom Marshall of SEA Consultants met with the Selec= tmen to provide a general overview of the proposed work to the Tallant Road Bridge. He said the purpose and need for t= he project was an issue of vehicular safety; the current bridge width is eight= een feet from curb to curb and has been deemed functionally obsolete (the traff= ic volumes are too high for the width). The structural capacity is adequate (posted E2). Mr. Marshall discussed the right-o= f-way plans and the purpose for the shift of the alignment leading to Keyes Hill Road. He said there were three possible solutions for maintaining traffic: 1) detour around the bridge during construction (south down to Nashua Road and looping back around approximate= ly 8 miles) or detouring traffic over Castle Hill Road which would be limited to cars since it was posted for three tons; 2) temporary bridge (not the best alignment; significant cost increase; two-lane bridge largest property impacts); 3) staged/phased construction (one lane traffic maintained throug= hout construction).

Mr. Marshall said the current proposed solution was to= use staged construction. It was n= oted that the Town had not made a decision regarding which construction option to= use. Mr. Marshall informed if= the plan was designed for staged construction, it was easy to revert it to deto= ur, but it would be difficult to change the plan from staged construction to detour. He said the final pla= ns and specifications (based upon staged construction) had been submitted to, and approved by the Department of Transportation (January, 2004); a Wetlands Pe= rmit was submitted to, and approved by the Department of Environmental Services (January, 2004) based upon the proposed alignment. He said there were negotiations occurring with three property owners regarding easements. He went on to review the proposed = plan and showed the three properties affected by the easements and/or acquisition. He said the need= for the easement/acquisition was because of the shift in the road, and to corre= ct the reverse curve which would better align with Keyes Hill Road. Mr. Marshall said negotiations were being done regarding the easement/acquisition from the Chafe and Fitzgerald properties for the roadway, side slopes, guardrail, drainage and the struct= ure itself; a small portion was needed temporarily for slope channel work and a staging area for equipment. H= e said negotiations were also occurring for the Steven’s property where a mi= nor temporary easement was needed to change the channeling and put additional s= tone work. He showed photos of each property.

Mr. Bergeron said he observed the site, and the bridge measurement from guardrail to guardrail was sixteen and one half (16.5) feet wide. Mr. Marshall discussed = how the measurements were taken and explained how staged construction would occ= ur; the bridge would be eleven (11) feet wide with a two (2) foot barrier (which would be anchored to the existing deck).&n= bsp; He said he would double check the measurements. Mr. Bergeron asked how SEA felt ab= out having the traffic back up during construction. Mr. Marshall said because of the n= ew alignment there would be room to park two rows of vehicles during one phase= of the project; the intent was to have police details during the peak times. He said there would be relief using other possibilities once construction started, if there were problems. Mr. Bergeron asked what the propos= ed width would be for the new bridge. Mr. Marshall said the new bridge width was proposed to be twenty-eig= ht (28) feet wide as recommended by the state and as dictated by traffic volume and speed.

Mr. Lynde asked if the new road would also be twenty-e= ight (28) feet wide. Mr. Marshall said = the road would taper to approximately twenty-one (21) feet at the curve toward = Mammoth Road. Mr. Lynde asked what changes would= be made to the proposed plan if the traffic were detoured. Mr. Marshall said the finished plan would not change, but there were details within the plan that would. Mr. Lynde asked what material the = bridge would consist of. Mr. Marshal= l said the bridge was proposed to be constructed of pre-cast concrete box beam, wh= ich allowed for the bridge to be built in segments.

Mr. Gaydos asked for a description of the new roadway.= Mr. Marshall said the new road wou= ld be twenty-eight (28) feet (twelve [12] foot lanes with two [2] foot shoulders) the striping would be at twelve (12) feet.

Mr. McDevitt confirmed that the purpose of realigning = the roadway was for safety. Mr. Marshall said the alignment was the primary purpose. Mr. McDevitt noted that the state = was about to install a blinking yellow light at the Mammoth Road intersection a= nd believed the realignment would ensure a better view of the intersection.

Mr. Derby asked which trees would be removed. Mr. Marshall reviewed the proposed= plan and said there were three (3) or four (4) trees within the easement/acquisi= tion area.

Mr. Lynde asked if the acquisition of a permanent ease= ment would affect the status of the lots as legal (sufficient frontage and acreage). Mr. Marshall said t= he Fitzgerald and Stevens properties were listed as easements; the Chafe prope= rty was more of an acquisition because the road and curbing would encroach onto= the property. Mr. Lynde wanted to= know if the road frontage and acreage would be affected. Mr. Marshall said the road frontage would not be affected, but the acreage (per the tax map was 2.04 acres) wou= ld be decreased (by approximately .106 acres).

Mr. Gaydos said because SEA Consultants had already co= ntracted with a surveyor to review all the right-of-ways (and related items) SEA was asked to make an amendment to their contract to also handle the easements (including the agreements with abutters).&= nbsp; He recommended that the Selectmen sign an amendment to the SEA Consultant contract providing an additional sixty-four (64) hours so that t= he easement agreements could be completed and reviewed by Town Counsel (later = to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds).&nbs= p; There was no objection by the Selectmen to authorize Mr. Gaydos to s= ign the amendment to the agreement with SEA Consultants.

Mr. Cory C= hafe – Abutter to Tallan= t Road Bridge

Mr. Cory Chafe, 100 Tallant Road, met with the Selectmen to discuss his concerns regarding the proposed Tallant Road Bridge project. Previously Mr. Chafe= had met with SEA Consultants, Inc. and Mr. Gaydos. Mr. Chafe said his property would = have the most impact due to the large area forty six hundred (4600) square feet = that would be taken in connection with the project. He said the public road was being proposed to be brought approximately forty (40) feet into his front yard an= d also a permanent easement would span the entire length of his front yard. This he felt was a significant imp= act to his property. Mr. Chafe did n= ot know the Town’s position for making an offer on the area of land, but= if the Town was unable to provide reasonable compensation, he would suggest th= at the project be done differently, which he understood was possible.

Mr. Chafe understood that safety concerns were being c= ited as a reason for the project; it was his belief that straightening the road alignment would increase the traffic speed in front of his house to the Mammoth Road intersection. He said additio= nal concerns were the removal of four (4) large trees (one [1] being a full-gro= wn weeping willow), each of which were valuable. He noted that his driveway (which = was two (2) years old) would be p= artially torn up. He was concerned wit= h the length of time that workers, police, etc. would be in his front yard. Mr. Chafe was not clear about the right-of-way being claimed since there was no record of which on his deed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Tim Pellequin (licensed surveyor), Promised Land Surveying of Londonderry, NH, who was contracted by SEA Consulting, Inc. to perform surveying and research discus= sed the right-of-way issue. He sa= id a lot of roadways throughout the state were not very well defined, and were &= #8216;prescriptive’ easements; however now roadways were laid out with fifty (50) or sixty (60)= foot right-of-ways dedicated to towns. He discussed the standard research procedure (review tax maps, review names and abutters, registry of deeds, selectmen records, road search and review plans of records). In = reference to the proposed, the subdivisions done along the roadway (specifically the Stevens subdivision) and in the area depict the road typically as having a = fifty (50) foot right-of-way (twenty five [25] feet from center line). He said they went with a fifty (50)= foot right-of-way (which is a prescriptive public use) when locating monuments up the road.

Mr. Chafe confirmed that the belief was the right-of-w= ay was ‘prescriptive’. M= r. Pellequin answered yes. Mr. C= hafe asked if building was allowed within a ‘prescriptive’ right-of-way. Mr. Pellequin w= as unsure. Mr. McDevitt said the Town’s right-of-way was fifty (50) feet. Mr. Pellequin said it was reasonab= le to call the right-of-way fifty (50) feet.&nbs= p; He said there was record research that had not been done on the road= way; further research could be done at the New Hampshire Archives, all Pelham ro= ads could be researched. Mr. Chafe wanted to know if additional land, or more area for a prescriptive right-of-way, would be taken if the road were built within the current fifty (50) foot right-of-way.

Mr. Lynde believed the statements were that the roadwa= y was a fifty (50) foot wide parcel owned either by deed or prescription. The right-of-way could not be moved. Mr. Chafe asked if the= Town would follow the plan to the letter, or work within what they believe they = could work within. Mr. McDevitt sai= d the Selectmen had not reviewed the plan before this evening.

Mr. Lynde believed the focus of the project was safety, which would hopefully be improved with the proposed plan. He said because the state was fund= ing eighty percent ( 80%) of the project, they had to agree to the plan, which = in this case the state had agreed. If the alignment were to be modified, the state may not agree; SEA had designed the project to the state standards. Mr. Chafe was concerned with the large area of his land being taken. He said during rush ho= ur traffic backed up, and was noisy; widening the bridge into his property wou= ld increase the noise. He felt h= is land value would decrease due to the easement being located onto his proper= ty, and was concerned with the severance damages. Mr. McDevitt said in his thirteen = years this was the first case like this; a price would not be negotiated publicly, they would continue discussions; in the event an agreement was not reached,= the Town would do what was right by Mr. Chafe and the townspeople. He said the Town was not in a posi= tion to pay an undue amount of money.

Mr. Lynde assumed that there were basic standards foll= owed regarding similar cases (for taking square footage and tree removal). He felt Mr. Chafe was fortunate th= at his property would maintain the Town’s zoning requirements. Mr. Chafe reiterated that his lot = value would decrease permanently. <= /p>

Mr. Bergeron wanted to know how close the road/bridge = would be to Mr. Chafe’s home when the project was complete. Mr. Marshall said at Mr. ChafeR= 17;s driveway the road would come in approximately twenty-six (26) feet from the edge of the current road to where the edge of the road would be constructed. Mr. Bergeron con= firmed that cars and trucks would be driving twenty-six (26) feet closer to Mr. Chafe’s home. Mr. Marsh= all said in reviewing the house plan (for original construction) it was noted t= hat the closest corner was one hundred eighty (180) feet to the Tallant Road right-of-way and eight= y (80) feet from another corner to the Mammoth Road right-of-way. He said in the plan prepared for M= r. Chafe’s home (done by a different surveyor) the right-of-way scaled o= ff at fifty (50) feet. Mr. McDev= itt asked that a copy of the plan be shared with Mr. Chafe.

Mr. Lynde assumed that any damage to Mr. Chafe’s driveway would be taken care of so that it would be made whole. Mr. Marshall said the intent was whatever removal limits shown close to the easement line; the pavement woul= d be saw cut at the location and an entire new drive/apron would be constructed, paved with six (6) inches of crushed gravel. He noted per the contract document= s, the contractor was required to maintain access to all driveways at all times. Mr. Lynde asked if a valid claim w= ould be made if Mr. Chafe could demonstrate through an appraiser that there was a value diminution to his land. Mr. Chafe said he spoke with appraisers who said the situation didn’t lend itself easily to an appraisal because there wasn’t anything to use fo= r a comparison. Mr. McDevitt said appraisals had b= een used in cases of tax abatement.

Mr. McDevitt said the Selectmen would take Mr. Chafe&#= 8217;s concerns under advisement and further discuss the situation with Mr. Gaydos.

OLD BUSINE= SS

None.

NEW BUSINE= SS

None.

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S/SELECTMEN’S REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos said Police Chief Haglund had the opportuni= ty to discuss the Men’s Softball agreement with the representatives, which would be discussed by the Selectmen at the next meeting. He then thanked Patrol Officer Per= riello and Animal Control Officer Vincent for the time they put together to organi= ze youths for trash removal at Veteran’s Park.

Mr. Bergeron made a correction to his report at the la= st meeting; there was confusion through e-mail that three towns had not formed= a regional water district. He apologized for any confusion. He said the next Regional Water District meeting would be held April 30, 2004.=

Mr. Derby had no report.

Mr. Lynde noted that the new Park & Recreation Dir= ector would begin work on Monday, the same day as Summer Camp registration.

Mr. McDevitt had no report.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:=

(Lynde/Bergeron) Request for a non-public session pe= r RSA 91-A:3,II, d (Consideration= of acquisition, sale or lease of property)

ROLL CALL:<= /b>

Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. Bergeron-Yes; M= r. Derby-Yes

Mr. McDevitt noted that when the Board returned, after= the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, exc= ept to seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting. The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 7:= 50 pm. Also present was Mr. Gaydos.

The Board returned to public session at approximately = 9:40 pm.

MOTION:=

(Lynde/Bergeron) To seal the minutes of the non-publ= ic session indefinitely.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Lynde/Bergeron) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:40 pm.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Respe= ctfully submitted,

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Chari= ty A. L. Willis

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recor= ding Secretary