SEL20101026

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

October 26, 2010

APPROVED &#= 8211; November 23, 2010

CALL TO ORDER – approximately 6:30pm

PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Viger, Mr. = Edmund Gleason, Mr. Robert Haverty (arrived after the meeting commenced), Mr. Wi= lliam McDevitt, Mr. Harold Lynde (arrived after the meeting commenced), Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

ABSENT:

None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MINUTES REVIEW

Octobe= r 19, 2010

MOTION:

(Haverty/Lynde= ) To approve the O= ctober 19, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(3-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

OPEN FORUM

None.

APPOINTMENTS:

Round-a-Bout Project for Town Center

Planning Director Jeff Go= wan provided the Selectmen with information.&n= bsp; He said the Nashua Regional Planning Commission (‘NRPC’)= asked them to approve an extension to the Department of Transportation’s (&= #8216;DOT’) schedule on the Round-a Bout construction.= He found out that the construction postponement was related to the fiscal year scheduling; basically it had been scheduled for construction to begin in 2011 with being accepted in August, 2011. The schedule had now shifted to November, 2011 (for bids) and construction to begin early in 2012. The final design aspect was being wrapped up. Mr. Gowan noted t= hat he asked NRPC for assurances that they could stay on the new schedule; NRPC indicated that the schedule could be relied upon. He said they were willing to meet = with the Selectmen to review any issues. One question NRPC had was if the Town wanted to appraise the strips = of land acquired by the DOT in the acquisition process. Mr. Gowan said they were intereste= d to know if the Selectmen wanted to proceed with some sort of auxiliary building. He explained that t= here had been some discussion regarding the use of remaining funds (if any) going toward that building; the Selectmen had not made a decision regarding this = and Mr. Gowan felt it might be a good idea to have NRPC discuss the topic with = the Board.

Mr. Lynde arrived.

Mr. Gleason believed the = whole process was already contained in the schedule. He questioned the real reason for = the extension because it didn’t seem to be able to withstand scrutiny. He said there should be further definition as to what was going on. He was surprised they were making the request and hoped since the fu= nding was earmarked by the Federal Government that it was not in jeopardy.

Mr. Haverty arrived.

Mr. Gowan stated that he = had been told the project was active with money being expended toward it. It was NRPC’s opinion that t= he inactive projects that were subject to being rescinded. Mr. Gleason wanted to make sure th= at the funds were adequately defined and they weren’t just extending it out = to later be detrimental to the Town’s project.

Mr. Gaydos stated that th= e money was earmarked for the project and the state would have to do it. He didn’t see any reason to = have the Town’s property have an appraisal; the takings they would do may = take several years to work out in court, but they would receive the property as = soon as they gave notice. Mr. Gayd= os wanted to know if the utilities had been discussed, such as how they would be move= d, who would pay to do so and where they would go. He spoke with a person from Windham regarding = the I93 widening project who told him utilities were something the state didn’= ;t plan on and it took three years to get everybody in line as to what would be done. Mr. Gowan didn’t = have an answer. He said he and the former Fire Chief (when he was still employed with the Town) had a meeting (with the state) and came from it with the impression that basically everyt= hing going to the utility pole would be their problem, and everything going from= the pole to the building was the Town’s issue.

Mr. McDevitt felt it woul= d be good for the Selectmen to have a meeting, through delegation of the Board, = to discuss any issues. He asked = if the Selectmen had the right to release the land to the DOT without Town Meeting approval. Mr. Gaydos replied = that they had the right to take it by eminent domain. He said it would be a question to = find out how it had worked in other towns because there were ramifications.

There was a consensus of = the Board to have a list of questions and to set up a conference call to answer such. Mr. Gleason believed it= to be beneficial to meet face to face and find out what they were doing. Mr. McDevitt said he also go to me= et with them. Mr. Gowan will communicate with Mr. Gaydos to set up a meeting.

Jeff Gowan, Planning Director: Drainage Improvements at Spring Street on Lannan Drive

Planning Director Jeff Go= wan displayed a map and plan showing the area.= He said the genesis of the issue was the development uphill from Lannan Drive. There was a serpentine drainage sw= ale built in the manner in which it was supposed to be; however there was still water coming off the hill impacting Spring Street. The developer (Kurt Meisner) under= stood the issue needed to be resolved. It was his hope to complete the work he was doing on <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Ballard Road and then bring the cre= w to Lannan Drive to do the swale work. Mr. Gowan out= lined the work that was proposed to be done for the drainage. He said the Highway Road Agent rev= iewed the plan and believed it made sense. The Planning Board’s (former) engineering firm Stantec was also reviewing the plan. Mr. Gowan= was hopeful that the Selectmen would give permission for the work to be done on= ce it was properly vetted by the engineering review. He said Mr. Meisner had requested = that Lannan Drive be among the roads that were candidates for acceptance this year. He told the Selectmen that he wouldn’t bring the road forward until the drainage issue was resolved.

Mr. Gaydos questioned who= would review the plan. Mr. Gowan re= plied that Stantec was finishing up the work they had been doing in Town and in t= his case they were the engineer of record doing the review work, the recommenda= tion had to come from them to the Planning Board for acceptance, resolving the issue. Mr. Gaydos commented t= hat Steve Keach of Keach-Nordstrom, the Planning Board’s current engineer= ing firm, had never seen Balla= rd Road, but solved the problems there quickly.&nbs= p; He said Keach is the one who was currently hired and had been working with the Highway Agent on a lot of projects. He reiterated that he handled Ballard Road wonderfully.

Mr. Lynde asked why the i= ssue wasn’t picked up previously during the design process. He questioned if the statistics th= at were being used were inadequate. He said beyond just fixing the situation, they should understand why it was happening and fix the root cause for such.= Mr. Gowan said the project pre-dated him; he wasn’t involved in managing the inspection process. He said today, the land would be a candidate for a conservation subdivision. He had no evidence that it didn= 217;t go through a thorough review process. He discussed the approach currently being taken when developing land. He said he would ask Mr. Keach’s opinion regarding what was going on in the area.

Mr. Lynde asked if the Pl= anning Board had taken steps to review their standards. Mr. Gowan said no specific steps h= ad been taken, but they were in general agreement they needed to sit down and rework the Subdivision and Site Development Regulations. Mr. Lynde believed it should be a = high priority and at the least they should put some margin of safety into the Regulations given what had been happening.=

Mr. McDevitt confirmed the reasons for the request being brought to them. Mr. Gowan said most of the work was within a Town right-of-way. T= he work couldn’t begin without speaking to the Selectmen first.

Mr. Lynde asked who was p= icking up the costs. Mr. Gowan said = the developer was picking up the costs.

Mr. Gleason wanted to kno= w what confidence they had that the proposed work would rectify the situation. Mr. Gowan said it was in review ri= ght now. One thing of concern was= that there was a low point on Spring Street that would continue to collect water because it was a low spot with impervious surface; any other water should be intercepted by the proposed drainage improvements. Mr. Gowan said these questions were presently before the review engineer; if it was the Board’s pleasure,= he said he would tell them to stop working on the project and engage Mr. Keach. Mr. Gleason asked if i= t was a possibility for the road to become a conduit for water. Mr. Gowan felt it was highly unlik= ely; the swale would be a secondary capture point. Mr. Gleason asked if it was steep hill. Mr. Gowan answered yes.= Mr. Gleason asked if there was a p= roblem with icing in the winter. Mr.= Gowan said there was a problem with icing at the bottom of Lannan caused by beaver dams, which were already taken care of by the Highway Agent. The proposed system was designed to capture any water coming off the hill as a result of what the developer built.

The Board discussed who t= hey would like to review the engineering. Mr. McDevitt had seen Mr. Keach make many presentations and felt he = did a good job; he had a high level of comfort if Mr. Keach said the proposal w= ould work. He encouraged the Board= to take the position of having Mr. Keach conduct the review. In his time on the Planning Board = Mr. Haverty worked with Stantec and Keach-Nordstrom. He said while there was tremendous= value in having Stantec work on the project, he felt it would be better to get Ke= ach involved early in the process so they were comfortable with it. Mr. Gleason was also in favor of K= each reviewing the plan. Mr. Haver= ty commented that the Board wasn’t saying they preferred one firm over another, but rather was looking at the future value that Keach would bring = to the project. He said Stantec = served the Town well, but at this point things were being transitioned to Keach. Mr. Viger agreed with what had been stated.

There was a consensus to = have Keach-Nordstrom conduct review of the proposed.

Discussion of State Roads and Intersections - Ledge Road & Route 38 - Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road

Planning Director Jeff Go= wan provided an update to the Selectmen regarding the status of the roads. He said he spoke with Bill Lambert, Traffic Engineering Administrator, Concord Department of Transportation, who had visited the Town and sent correspondence back and forth with then Department of Transportation Commissioner Carol Murray. He said a design had been done for= the Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road intersection in 2007 and were of the opinion at the time that a round-about would be cost effective. He s= aid the project was not on the state’s ten-year plan, therefore the Plann= ing Board started exacting funds from developers that were doing developments a= long Sherburne Road. Mr. Gowan noted that they asked for legal opinion regarding the exactions.&nbs= p; Town Counsel Attorney Ratigan responded with specific advice regardi= ng exactions versus impact fees. Additional advice was to coordinate with the Department of Transport= ation (‘DOT’) to be sure they were on board with doing work to the intersection and to express their interest in pursuing the intersection fix= and come up with an agreement that DOT would support. Mr. Gowan said they would need to = look at funding mechanisms. He noted that the money previously collected (a few thousand dollars) had aged and would be returned; there was a six-year limi= t to holding funds.

Mr. Viger said when he sa= t on the Capital Improvements Plan Committee (‘CIP’) there was a plan in place that allowed them to collect impact fees. He questioned if the intersection = had to be identified on the CIP. Mr.= Gowan replied it was a statutory prerequisite for an impact fee, not an off-site exaction. Those two were diff= erent, but shared some aspects.

Mr. Gleason asked if ther= e was anything to expedite the = Willow Street Bridge project. It was Mr. GowanR= 17;s opinion to keep setting money aside and to continue to apply pressure throu= gh the Nashua Regional Planning Commission (‘NRPC’) so the project stays on the plan.

Mr. Lynde asked if there = was a ‘ballpark’ figure for the round-about. Mr. Gowan had heard estimates from $450,000 to $750,000, but didn’t trust the figures because they weren’t based on solid engineering at this stage.

Mr. Gowan then discussed = the Ledge Road/Route 38 intersection and the options that had been discussed. He said one idea would be to work = with the DOT and deal with the traffic exiting Ledge Road. He discussed how the traffic could= be re-routed. There was a brief = discussion regarding the ‘no trucking’ signs that were posted in the past = and the remaining question why they were originally posted. It was suggested to review the Selectmen’s meeting minutes of the time. Mr. Gowan noted that they would ne= ed to include Mr. Bergeron, who owned the convenience store at the intersection, = to discuss traffic patterns. Aft= er further discussion, Mr. McDevitt said one thing to discuss with DOT would b= e to post signs indicating ‘dangerous intersection’.

Mr. Gowan told the Board = about a case currently before the Planning Board off St. Margaret’s Drive. He said the Planning Board had thu= s far given direction to the applicant to design a connection to Surrey Lane. He said the abutters had engaged t= heir own engineer to ‘watch dog’ the process and had voiced their concern, wanting the cul-de-sac to be removed. He said if the Planning Board were= to approve the project subject to the connection would also be subject to the = Selectmen granting approving as well. He noted that the Highway Safety Committee had recommended the connection.

Mr. McDevitt wasn’t= sure where they were in the process and asked if the Selectmen should make a decision regarding the proposal soon. Mr. Gowan said he was providing an update. Mr. Viger recalled there = were people who objected and wanted to get their opinion.

Mr. Lynde commented that = the Planning Board should make sure that any potential impact would be mitigate= d by the design. Mr. Gowan said th= at was the Planning Board’s goal. He stated that the people he spoke about had been very involved with the Plann= ing Board process and had engaged an engineer that had attended all the meetings. Site walks had been conducted. The abutter’s concerns were loud and clear and very much a part of the Board’s conc= ern.

Mr. Gaydos said if the Se= lectmen were having second thoughts, they should let it be known. It was his understanding that the = plan was always to connect. The neighbors concern was about the quality of their drinking water. Mr. Gaydos said it would be incumb= ent upon them to monitor, on some type of a basis, the quality of the water and= if there was a problem they would have to fix it. It they were to come up with ground rules to present to the abutters it would go a long way to alleviating their fears. There was further disc= ussion regarding the proposal to punch the road through from St. Margaret’s Drive to Surrey Lane.

Mr. McDevitt said he went= back to the Fire Chief to explain again why it was important for the road to go through. The Fire Chief told Mr. McDevitt of a situation where the road was blocked and he had to contact Salem to service that side of Town; he had no= way of accessing it. The proposed connection would alleviate a similar situation reoccurring. Mr. McDevitt said the Selectmen co= uld at least convey that they had no objection to the connection.

Mr. Gleason cautioned ass= uming responsibility for someone’s water.&= nbsp; He agreed that it should be deferred to the Planning Board, but would want to think about making any commitments on behalf of the Town for future functioning of wells. Mr. Gay= dos said he had discussed the situation with Town Counsel and was advised how t= he situation was normally taken care of. He said he would look for the opinion letter.

Mr. McDevitt asked what t= he cost would be. Mr. Gowan said seve= ral quotes were received; it was more money than the developer wanted to pay wh= ich was an issue that would have to be resolved. He said the Planning Board would be within their rights to say they couldn’t build the project because it= was a premature development; no final decisions have been made.

Mr. Gleason asked if Mr. = Gowan had a clear understanding of what the Selectmen were requesting of him. Mr. Gowan understood that he would= write some letters to DOT regarding the issues.&= nbsp; Regarding the Spring Street road work, once Keach determines that it passes muster, they had the green flag to proceed with completing the work. He said they also had w= ork to do with the DOT regarding = Old Gage Hill Road and Route 38, then he would have the Highway Safety Committee weigh in again.&n= bsp; Mr. McDevitt said he would sort through the Selectmen’s meeting minutes = to see what the discussion was when they installed the no trucking signs. The neighborhood would then be not= ified of what the Town was intending to do.

DISCUSSION

Proposed 2011 Budget amendments by Budget Committee

Mr. Gleason reviewed the = proposed changes to the 2011 budget made by the Budget Committee that the Selectmen needed to review and take action on.

$243,000 added to Highway maintenance

$302 deleted from Planning Department

$3825 deleted from the Po= lice Department (error in calculation)

$5180 deleted from Selectmen’s budget to move the allocations for telephones back to appropriate departments.

$1400 reduced from Transf= er Station for repairs.

Overall the budget increa= sed from that approved by the Selectmen in the amount of $232,368.

Mr. Gleason made a motion= to approve an Operating Budget for the Town of $12,228,395. Mr. McDevitt seconded for discussion. There was a brief discussion regarding the motion.

MOTION:

(Gleason/McDev= itt) To approve an Operating Budget for the Town of $12,228,395, which represents a $232,= 368 increase from the budget approved by the Selectmen.

VOTE:

(3-2-0) The motion carried.= Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Haverty vot= ed no.

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S / SELECTMEN’S REPORTS

Mr. McDevitt had no repor= t.

Mr. Lynde informed he att= ended the Municipal Advocacy Committee (‘MAC’) meeting earlier in the day. He said MAC was taking t= he state to court on a 28:A issue which says that the state is constitutionally bann= ed from passing on unfunded mandates. <= /span>With regard to payments for retirement costs, towns had been submitting such ‘under protest’ because they wanted to get their money back if = the case was won. He asked if the= Board had any objection to Pelham pursuing that avenue. There was no objection.

Mr. Gaydos noted that two= wells were installed for the benefit of the Town. It took nine weeks to get electric= ity to them for the village green sprinkler system. Everything was done and hooked up.= A shed would be constructed to mak= e it secure. Mr. Gaydos reported t= hat a well had been installed at the Animal Shelter.

Mr. Haverty and Mr. Gleas= on had no reports.

Mr. Viger had no report, = but wanted to remind the public that voting would occur November 2, 2010.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

(Haverty/Lynde) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, a (personnel)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Viger-Yes;= Mr. Gleason-Yes; Mr. Haverty-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes

It was noted tha= t when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take = any other action publicly, except to possibly 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.

The Board returned to public session at approximately 9:29 pm.

MOTION:

(Lynde/McDevit= t) To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Lynde/McDevit= t) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:29 pm.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Charity A. Landry Willis

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Recording Secretary