APPROVED
TOWN OF
BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING
MINUTES
APPROVED &#= 8211; January 25, 2011
CALL TO ORDER –
approximately
|
PRESENT: |
Mr. Douglas Viger (arri= ved after the meeting commenced), Mr. Edmund Gleason, Mr. William McDevitt, M= r. Robert Haverty, Mr. Harold Lynde, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos |
|
ABSENT: |
None. |
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
|
MOTION: |
(Haverty/Lynde=
) To
approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(4-0-0)
The motion carried. |
OPEN FORUM
Mr. Paul McDonough, Selectmen Update Mr. Gleason updated the B=
oard by
summarizing the recent activity of the Budget Committee. He then told the Board that he, the
Planning Director, the Fire Chief and Mr. Gaydos met with the Department of
Transportation (‘DOT’). At the meeting it was determined th=
at the
best approach might be to stay with configuration ‘B’ for the T=
own
Center project, which would allow the state to proceed and provide the Town
with a fixed configuration whether the fire station was on the ballot or
not. Mr. Gleason said if the
Selectmen were going to direct the DOT to proceed with their schedule, the
Selectmen would need to concur with the design. He reviewed the current schedule.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The state was looking to the Selec=
tmen
to acquire Town land, which indicates a warrant article may need to be draf=
ted
authorizing the Selectmen to give the land to the State. Mr. Gaydos noted there were legal =
issues
that would need to be reviewed as to the best way to proceed with minimal e=
xpense
on the project. The status of=
the
compact area would be reviewed; information will be provided to the Town for
legal review and determination. Mr.
Gleason said during the meeting with DOT they wanted to determine a
timeline. He said another que=
stion
was the Fair Point modification to the Mr. Lynde said the state
originally had a start of a design based on configuration ‘A’ a=
nd
didn’t know how difficult it would be for them to go from configurati=
on
‘A’ to configuration ‘B’. He said believed the alignment was
better and there would be a larger green area if alternative ‘A’
was used. He commented if the
Town’s people supported a fire station, he saw no reason the Town
shouldn’t move forward with configuration ‘A’. It was Mr. Gleason’s impress=
ion
that it would facilitate the state’s process to establish a configura=
tion
and proceed. It was the
state’s impression that configuration ‘B’ would be neglig=
ible
in terms of difference; the positive aspect was if the fire station was
successful, there would be more green space on that side of the street. He said it could be further discus=
sed,
but the consensus of the people that participated in the meeting was that
configuration ‘B’ was probably the right decision at this point=
in
time. Mr. McDevitt asked if the=
cost of
relocating utilities was part of the state’s estimated cost. Mr. Gleason believed it was. He said they were adamant that they
wouldn’t get Fair Point to move within a year; Fair Point would not do
anything until a contract was awarded to a general contractor and only then
would they start their process. However
the state could proceed in the area of Mr. Gleason briefed the S=
electmen
regarding the status of the OTHER BUSINESS Auditors Melanson Heath and Company Contract Mr. Gaydos told the Selec=
tmen if
they wanted to proceed, Melanson Heath and Company would be able to conduct=
an
audit of 2010 in a timely basis. He
asked if they wanted to proceed. Mr. McDevitt appreciated =
that the
Selectmen deferred taking action so he could review the materials. He said he reviewed the material a=
nd had
no further comments. The Selectmen discussed i=
f/how
they would proceed. MOTION: (Lynde/Haverty=
) To
hire the CPA Firm of Melanson Heath and Company to do the Town’s 20=
10
audit, in accordance with their contract proposal to the Selectmen dated =
VOTE: (4-0-0)
The motion carried. Comcast Contract Extension Mr. Gaydos stated he had =
been
working to determine the Comcast Franchise Agreement changes being proposed=
by
Comcast. There are items that=
still
need to be discussed; the extension would bring the current agreement out t=
o Mr. McDevitt recalled an =
attorney
was hired to help guide them through the process last time they renewed. It was noted that the ext=
ension
would be a simple extension so the contract would live for six more months.=
There was a consensus that having =
an
attorney, knowledgeable with franchise agreements, conduct review. Any discussions should involve Cab=
le
Coordinator Jim Greenwood.
MOTION: (Haverty/McDev=
itt) To
sign the extension of the Cable Television Franchise Agreement. VOTE: (4-0-0)
The motion carried. BOARD OF HEALTH – Article K Request(s) Mr. Gleason adjourned the
Selectmen’s meeting in favor of conducting a Board of Health meeting =
with
Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski as Chairman. Map 31 Lot <=
st1:Street
w:st=3D"on"> The requested waivers wer=
e to:
Section 295-16 – leach field to group 5 soils; Section 295-12 –=
compliance
with New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (‘NHDES’=
;) distance
above the seasonal high water table; Section 295-12 – compliance with
NHDES system fill extension; Section 295-12 – compliance with NHDES s=
ystem
side slopes; Section 295-14 – distance above estimated seasonal high
water table; and Section 295-16 – field setback from a pond 125ft
required with 100ft. proposed. Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben=
chmark
Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the
requests. He said the propert=
y was
a year-round home on Little Island Pond and had been in the same family for
approximately sixty years. It=
was
in the process of being transferred to one of the siblings, at which time t=
he
septic inspection was done. A=
Clean
Solutions plan was developed for the property. The proposed tank would essentially=
be in
the same place as the existing; the disbursal area will go closer to the ro=
ad
increasing the existing setback of the field from the pond. It was Mr. Maynard’s belief =
that
they had come up with the best possible solution for the property. Mr. Zarnowski asked how t=
he
proposed solutions were in accordance with the required setbacks. Mr. Maynard said the existing syst=
em sat
relatively close to the water table; the new design would raise it by using=
a
pump system. It was believed =
to be
a better health situation.
Mr. Haverty questioned if=
the
existing system was in failure. Mr.
Maynard said a home inspection was done on the property, which came back
indicating the existing system was in failure. Mr. Zarnowski noted that =
the
setback to group 5 soils had a state requirement of 50ft.; the proposal sho=
wed 70
ft. Regarding the side slopes=
and
fill extensions, Mr. Zarnowski stated he had never seen anything fail withi=
n a
foot; the proposed showed three feet which would provide for a two foot
buffer. He discussed what wou=
ld be
done to stabilize the slopes. It
was noted there was a two-step process for approvals, once the Town granted=
an
approval, the applicant would seek the State’s approval. There was a brief discuss=
ion
regarding the process that would be taken to disable the current system and
install the new one. MOTION: (Lynde/McDevit=
t)
Relative to Map 31 Lot 11-259 address 63 South Shore Drive - To approve the waivers to: 1) Se=
ction
295-12 – distance above the high water table where 4ft. required and
2ft is proposed; 2) Section 295-16 – (field setback from pond) where
125ft from pond is Town required, the state requires 75ft. and proposed i=
s 100ft.;
3) Section 295-16 field to Group 5 soils – Town requires 75ft. setb=
ack,
State requires 50ft. setback and the proposed is a 70ft. setback; 4) Sect=
ion
295-12 – system fill extension (edge of field from side slopes); 5)
Section 295-12 – side slope staying within property line; and 6)
Section 295-14 – distance above seasonal high water table. VOTE: (5-0-0)
The motion carried. &n=
bsp;
Map 31 Lot The requested waivers wer=
e to:
Section 295-14 – distance above high water table; Section 295-16 R=
11;
septic tank to lot line; Section 295-12 - compliance with New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (‘NHDES’)fill extension fr=
om
side slope to system; and Section 295-12 - compliance with NHDES fill
extension. Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben=
chmark
Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the reques=
ts. He noted that the property contain=
ed a
boat house and was the access to the island on the pond. Inside the boat house was a bathro=
om and
living space. The owner was n=
ot
happy with the existing system and asked Mr. Maynard what could be put in to
bring it into compliance. Mr.
Maynard said the property itself would never be utilized as a home. In reviewing the area, it was deci=
ded
that a clean solutions system would be appropriate. Mr. Maynard discussed the lot and =
how the
system would be configured. T=
he
abutters on both sides were in favor of proceeding and making betterment on=
the
lot. Mr. Gleason questioned if=
any
legal documents or right of w=
ay would
need to be in place for the system to be located on the neighbor’s
property. Mr. Zarnowski state=
d that
the system itself was (entirely) on the applicant’s property. Mr. Maynard explained that it was =
one
foot off of the setback. MOTION: (Lynde/Gleason=
) To
grant a waivers relative to Map 31 Lot 11-210 / 11 South Shore Drive to
Article K: 1) Section 295-12 – fill extension distance down to 3ft.=
-
side slope requirements commencement with the dimensions of the property;=
2)
Section 295-14 – distance above the seasonal high water table
(allowing) 2ft. versus (the required) 4ft.; 3) Section 295-16 –
distance from lot line with one foot to be provided. The reasons for waivers were bec=
ause
of the limitation of the property size.&=
nbsp;
VOTE: (5-0-0)
The motion carried. Map 30 Lots 11-149, Mr. Haverty recused himse=
lf
because he was a customer of the applicant. The requested waivers wer=
e:
Section 295-16 – tank to lot line; Section 295-12 – compliance =
with
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (‘NHDES’)
– side slopes 3 to 1 required with 2 to 1 proposed; Section 295-14
– distance above estimated seasonal high water table 4ft. required us=
ing
50% rule, with 3ft. proposed; and Section 295-16 – sewer line to well=
50ft.
required with 10ft. proposed. Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben=
chmark
Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the reques=
ts. He stated the property was conside=
red
year round containing a dwelling that sat next to the pond. There was a garage located across =
the
street owned by the applicant. The
proposal was to construct a new septic system on the lot behind the primary
dwelling lot. The primary dwe=
lling
lot contained a septic system that was located in the location that the
proposed septic tank would be installed.&n=
bsp;
Mr. Maynard believed the existing system was a dry well that was pum=
ped
on a regular occasion. There =
were
no current issues, but the owner saw one coming because it was an older
system. The new system would =
be
located on the owner’s lot across the street approximately 200ft. from
the pond and a huge improvement over the existing system which was located
approximately 75ft. from the pond.
Mr. Maynard discussed the requested waivers relative to the proposed
plan; easements will be created to fit the system across the street. Mr. Lynde asked where the
existing system was located. =
Mr.
Maynard described the location. Mr.
Lynde asked if the tank was a Clean Solutions tank. Mr. Maynard said it was a conventi=
onal
tank having three compartments. Mr.
Lynde discussed the lots and confirmed which lots would contain the
system. He wanted to confirm =
that
there wouldn’t be any seepage given the close proximity of an abutting
well. Mr. Maynard said the pi=
pe
would be ‘sleeved’ within thirty-five feet of the well. MOTION: (Lynde/Gleason=
) To
grant the waivers to Article K relative to Map 30 Lots 11-149, 11-154, 13
Gaston Road for: 1) Section 295-12 – side slopes 3 to1 and allow 2 =
to1;
2) Section 295-14 – distance above the seasonal high water table 4f=
t.
required, 3ft. requested; 3) Section 295-16 – location of tank to t=
he
lot line and separation between sewer line and well 50ft. requirement with
10ft. being requested which will be mitigated by the design with continuo=
us
pipe and sleeving. VOTE: (4-0-0)
The motion carried. (Mr. Ha=
verty
had stepped down for the discussion/hearing) Mr. Haverty returned to t=
he
Board. Map 14 Lot Waiver requested: Section=
295-16
- setback to poorly drained soils 75ft. required where 51ft. is proposed.
Mr. Shayne Gendron of Her=
bert
Associates came forward to represent the plan. He provided a history of the lot a=
nd
discussed how it had been reviewed.
After locating a considerable amount of group 5 soils a test pit was=
set
up in the best location on the lot making it clear they were unable to meet=
all
the setback requirements. The=
lot
is located with Zone A, a Flood Zone.
The flood zone was tied into the FEMA elevations with the benchmarks=
and
found, based on an elevation, they weren’t in a flood zone. Mr. Gendron said Zone A is a limit=
ed
study area on a FEMA map and basically says they don’t have
information. He discussed the
process they took to prove they weren’t in the flood zone. Mr. Gendron noted that the proposed
system would maintain 60+ feet from the poorly drained soils. The lot meets all the loading
requirements for the state. T=
here
are no waivers requested through the state. Mr. Lynde asked what setb=
ack was
being proposed. Mr. Gendron s=
aid he
was proposing 60+ feet for the actual leach bed. He said they were required to show=
a
replacement area, which would be at 50ft.&=
nbsp;
He noted if there was a problem inside the bed, it could be replaced
inside the same footprint. Mr.
Lynde questioned if the edge of wet was based on review of the site by a
wetlands soil scientist. Mr.
Gendron answered yes; Gove Environmental flagged the site. Mr. Lynde wanted to know the issue=
with
the flood zone. Mr. Gendron Mr. Zarnowski said the on=
ly other
potential issue he had was the fill placed on the lot approximately 7-9 yea=
rs
ago which was prior to regulations; it might have been when the original
subdivision was done. Mr. Gen=
dron stated
the test pit was done on upland soils.&nbs=
p;
He said any filling done on the property was in the upland areas of =
the
lot not to affect any wetland. He
said if anything it would help the case for the LOMA and create a better
situation. Mr. Lynde questioned if t=
he edge
of wet went into the road and abutting lot as shown on the plan. Mr. Gendron answered yes. He discussed the section of the ro=
ad
being shown and commented that some of the road had sections that were fill=
ed
in the past. Mr. Lynde confir=
med
that there was no specific septic system design at this point in time. Mr. Gendron said there was a desig=
n on
page 2 of the plan set; an Enviro System would be used. Mr. Lynde then confirmed that the
applicant had no other approval steps, other than that involving the flood
plane. Mr. Gendron answered s=
aid
that was correct. MOTION: (Lynde/McDevit=
t) To
grant the waiver requests relative to Map 14 Lot 4-118-1, 11 Washington
Street to Section 295-16 – distance from poorly drained soil for le=
ach
beds; requirement 75ft. where 60ft. is being proposed. VOTE: (5-0-0)
The motion carried. MOTION: To adjourn the=
Board
of Health meeting. VOTE: (5-0-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Viger arrived. The Selectmen reconvened their
meeting. APPOINTMENTS Fire Station – Berard Martel Architects Mr. Viger explained that =
at the
last meeting the Selectmen didn’t support the amount of money for the
current fire station. He said=
they
were looking at other alternatives and Berard Martel Architecture had put
together a preliminary plan for review.&nb=
sp;
Mr. Gaydos noted that Berard Martel had done some advisory work for =
the
library and Sherburne Hall. H=
e said
the Town had also worked with Costagna Consulting Group during the Sherburne
Hall project and consulting work when planning a highway garage. Mr. Gaydos said he and Fire Chief =
James
Midgley went back to the drawing board with the idea of trying to answer
questions/concerns of the Board and the public. He introduced Mr. Rob Martel and M=
r. Lee
Berard who had worked on the project.
He said because the company had recently done work with a similar fi=
re
station in Mr. Michael Costagna of C=
ostagna
Consulting Group came forward to discuss his company. He said he had a program managemen=
t and development
consulting firm and acted as an owner’s representative in projects;
primarily commercial/industrial/municipal projects. He discussed a recent project done=
in Mr. Rob Martel of Berard =
Martel
Architecture told the Board that they had just completed the design for a n=
ew
fire station that would be built out of insulated concrete forms. They liked that method of construc=
tion
because it provided a tight building envelope and allowed them the opportun=
ity
to create an insulated shell inside and outside of the building. The insulated concrete forms were b=
eing
proposed for the Town’s new fire station. He reviewed the plan showing the d=
esign
of the station and how it would be situated on the site and the proposed
traffic pattern. He showed the
Board the floor plan of the
building. Mr. Viger asked Fire Chief
Midgley how the proposed station fit into his needs and expectations. Chief Midgley congratulated the
construction team for coming up with great ideas. He met with some of his crew who c=
ame up
with some items that would need to be reviewed. He felt these items could be addre=
ssed
with minor changes and the idea was completely workable. He was very impressed with going b=
ack to
a concrete building. He encou=
raged
the Selectmen to move forward with the proposed design. Mr. McDevitt asked for fu=
rther
information on the insulated concrete.&nbs=
p;
Mr. Costagna provided a visual of the concrete form system for the B=
oard
to review. Mr. McDevitt asked=
for a
cost figure. Mr. Costagna said
based on the design and the proposed system they were approximately half a
million dollars less than the other design. Cost being approximately $3.6 - $3.8
million. Mr. Lynde asked if there =
was any
concern about ice build up in other areas given the pitched roof design. Mr. Gleason questioned if=
the
building satisfied all the deed restrictions relative to setbacks. Mr. Gaydos answered yes. He provided a copy of the deed to =
the
architects who reviewed such and understood the building would have to meet=
the
restrictions. Mr. Gleason wan=
ted to
know if there would be any problems with two driveways coming onto Mr. Lynde wanted to know =
what
length of time the proposed station would accommodate the Town. Mr. Costagna said they discussed t=
hat
topic with Mr. Gaydos and Chief Midgley and would be revising the building =
based
on that conversation. He said
typically designs had a minimum of fifteen years ahead. He said options were discussed and=
if
the Town outgrew the building the option may be a satellite station, but the
building was configured on the site to give a little bit of latitude for
expansion. Mr. Lynde asked wh=
at was
missing that would limit the building’s long-term life compared to the
previous plan. Chief Midgley =
said
the construction method was geared more toward the fifty year life; the
operational capacity would be more toward fifteen years. He said in fifteen years if staff =
and/or
vehicles were added they wouldn’t be completely in the building and w=
ould
have to split into a sub-station.
He noted they were already aware they were heading in that direction=
and
collecting impact fees. There=
were
other concessions made within the building that would be further reviewed a=
nd
brought back to the Selectmen. Mr.
Lynde wanted to know what type of growth the department expected. Chief Midgley said they knew they =
would
be moving toward three ambulances and the need for additional staff in that
fifteen year period. He expla=
ined
that they wouldn’t be able to put another ambulance or engine in the
proposed building which would be pretty much at maximum capacity. Mr. Gaydos understood tha=
t the
design accommodated everything that was in the prior design. Chief Midgley said that was correc=
t. Mr. Gaydos said if a decision was =
made
to have a Deputy Chief, there would be space to accommodate that position.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the idea was not to take
anything out of the old design, other than perhaps reducing bedrooms, wasted
space, stairways etc. He felt=
they
did a great job of fitting everything into the one footprint. They were accommodating the same g=
rowth,
it was being done on a smaller footprint.&=
nbsp;
Mr. McDevitt believed the=
impact
fees would need to be reviewed and wanted to know if the use of such would =
be
jeopardized by virtue of changing the design. Mr. Gaydos didn’t believe so=
; at
the time they were reviewing the deed restrictions they wanted to make sure=
to
meet the impact fee requirements.
He felt they met the requirements because the proposed building acco=
mmodated
everything the previous building had.
Chief Midgley stated the concessions were mainly spaces. Mr. Lynde asked if the bu=
ilding
qualified for any grants because of being so energy efficient. Mr. Costagna said there were sever=
al
federal, state and private grants that the building would be eligible for.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gaydos asked the mech=
anical
systems be discussed. Mr. Cos=
tagna
stated they were proposing radiant heat in the floors, which would be highly
efficient in the building. An=
air
circulation system would need to be added because the building was so tight;
this could be done in the air conditioning system. Mr. Lynde said there had
been a brief discussion regarding the radiant heat and the belief that it
wouldn’t keep up because of the doors opening and closing. Mr. Costagna commented that the sy=
stem
that was proposed is old school design; the proposed system would need an a=
ir
exchange system in the apparatus bay that would be a second stage system. Mr. McDevitt said he was =
in favor
of using new construction methods but wanted to know the disadvantages to t=
he
proposed construction. Mr. Co=
stagna
stated there were no down sides. He
said they were proposing the Nudura System, which after doing research he f=
ound
to be the best and virtually foolproof.&nb=
sp;
Mr. Martel commented that his firm had seen many product representat=
ives
come through in the last five to ten years representing insulated concrete
forms and there had been a huge change in that construction market. He said every year they get better=
and
better; Nudura had achieved the pinnacle of not having a thermal conductant
from one plane of the insulation to the other. Mr. McDevitt asked what was on the
inside of the walls. Mr. Cost=
agna
discussed the forms and the ease of installing wall material within the
building. He said the inside =
of the
apparatus bay would be finished with a durable, high impact surface. Mr. Gleason asked what re=
duction
there would be in operating costs with the proposed type of building. Mr. Costagna stated an energy audi=
t had
been done on the building in Mr. Gaydos understood tha=
t the Plimo
Vent System would be eliminated and asked how the Chief felt about it. Chief Midgley stated he would
investigate it. He received
information about the positive pressure system and was concerned that there=
was
no detection system for diesel fumes.
He would investigate further to ensure that the new technology was
safe. Mr. Viger asked the Selec=
tmen if
they were comfortable with the new proposed number. Chief Midgley commented that even =
if the
building came back at $4.2 million, it was a better building than what they
would have had. Mr. Gleason said he belie=
ved
there was a definite need for a fire station and felt the proposed building=
was
the solution. He said he coul=
d live
with the figure of $3.7 million because he felt the needs of the Town and t=
he
Fire Department would be met. He
said significant reductions had been made in the past and didn’t feel
they could keep reducing the operational efficiency of the department. Mr. Haverty thought the p=
roposed
was a better building than the previous.&n=
bsp;
He said compromises were made and efficiencies were gained over the =
last
building. He believed the bui=
lding
still gave the department what it needed to operate and took advantage of s=
ome
interesting technology. Under=
standing
that the plan was preliminary, he felt it was a good plan to bring to
voters. Mr. Lynde supported the p=
lan and
believed the warrant article should be phrased to raise not more than $3.7
million for the building. Mr.=
Viger
said there may be impact fees that offset the amount. Mr. Lynde didn’t incorporate
impact fees because they didn’t know exactly what they were. He said the intent was to use impa=
ct
fees and any grants to help offset costs.&=
nbsp;
He said the question was what they needed to do from this point on to
get something together and get approval from Budget Committee. Mr. Haverty believed there was sti=
ll
some work that needed to be done prior to discussing a dollar figure. Mr. Viger said there had =
been
discussion that the gentlemen were willing to expedite the process to provi=
de
the Board with a complete build out model, construction costs and not to ex=
ceed
number for the Selectmen’s Mr. McDevitt questioned i=
f the
Budget Committee was open to a late warrant article. Mr. Gleason felt there was a conse=
nsus
of the Budget Committee if the Selectmen came forward with something, they
would consider it. He said a
meaningful package with substantiated cost should be put together to move
forward. Mr. Gaydos felt it w=
as
important for the Budget Committee to be made aware of what the Selectmen
knew. He commented on the fac=
t that
a lot of work had been done. =
He
said the Selectmen had a copy of an agreement that was designed to take the
next step to move ahead. He s=
aid if
the Selectmen were amenable to the plan, the impact fees could be used to m=
ove
forward. Mr. Lynde discussed a
conversation he had with a constituent who was enthusiastic about a new sta=
tion
and urged him to place it on the ballot this year. He believed the Town was ready for
one. Mr. Viger had heard a lo=
t of
feedback saying they had to get something on the ballot this year. The Selectmen discussed h=
ow they
would proceed and what roles the architect and contractor would have. Mr.
Gaydos noted that an inventory of the types of things that would be needed
(site, soils etc.) so as to not pay for items twice if work had already been
done. Mr. Gleason confirmed t=
hat
the rough number would be all inclusive of architectural fees to get the
drawings set to bid. Mr. Cost=
agna
said it would be a full project cost, not just construction cost. Mr. Haverty confirmed tha=
t the
contract was for $81,000, less the $5000 that had already been paid and wan=
ted
the Selectmen to discuss how it would be funded. Mr. Viger said the $76,000 would b=
e paid
in three equal payments coming out of impact fees already collected. Mr. Gaydos confirmed there were ad=
equate
funds available. MOTION: (Lynde/Haverty=
) To
authorize entering into a architect service arrangement/contract with Ber=
ard
Martel Architect in the amount of $81,000 to be paid out of Fire Station
Impact Fees with $5000 of which already paid and the balance ($76,000) to=
be
paid in three installments of about $25,333 each. VOTE: (5-0-0) The mo=
tion
carried. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. McDevitt said he want=
ed the
Selectmen to be aware of a piece of land (approx. ½ acre) off Mr. Gaydos provided the S=
electmen
with a drawing of the parcel to show that the abutter wouldn’t be abl=
e to
combine the land in question with another piece of land to create another h=
ouse
lot. The driveway ran along t=
he
property and because of a wetland situation the abutter didn’t have
another option. Mr. Haverty asked where t=
he land
was located. Mr. McDevitt sai=
d the
junk can’t be seen from the road.&nb=
sp;
He said the Planning Director had photographs of the lot. He noted that he had approached the
abutter, it was not someone coming forward trying to get a parcel of land.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gaydos noted that a backhoe
wouldn’t be adequate; an excavator would be needed to do the job. Mr. Gleason questioned if there wa=
s a
potential for hazardous waste. Mr.
Gaydos said it looked like junk that was dumped. Mr. McDevitt asked that t=
he
Selectmen hold off making a decision until he provided photographs of the
parcel. The next step would be to go to Planning and Conservation. SELECTMEN / TOWN
ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS Mr. Lynde asked about the=
status
for replacing the Senior Center Director (who retired). Mr. Gaydos said he would be drafti=
ng a
job description with the current director and have an advertisement in mid/=
late
January. Mr. McDevitt thanked the =
Fire
Department, who recently responded on two occasions to 911 calls at his
house. He let the Fire Chief =
know
how much he appreciated the prompt response and professionalism. Mr. Gaydos informed that =
an
e-mail was sent by Mr. Garboski, a Library Trustee, asking if the Selectmen=
was
going to transfer $5872 to their budget in this calendar year because of an
error made from the reporting at Town Meeting. He said the state informed that the
recording of Town Meeting that is submitted cannot be amended per state
regulations. Mr. Gleason said he would=
like to
review a list of the shortcomings they were looking at so before they made a
move they could understand the magnitude of the problem and where the funds
would come from. After a brief discussion,=
Mr.
Gaydos stated based on projections there would be adequate funds available.
There were no objections by the Selectmen to transfer the stated funds to t=
he
library. There were no additional
Selectmen reports. REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION MOTION: (Gleason/Lynde)
Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, a (Personnel) ROLL CALL: Mr. Viger-Yes;=
Mr.
Gleason-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Haverty-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-publi=
c session
and to adjourn the meeting. T=
he
Board entered into a non-public session at approximately The
Board returned to public session at approximately MOTION: (Lynde/Gleason=
) To
seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely. VOTE: (5-0-0) The mo=
tion
carried. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: (Lynde/Gleason=
) To
adjourn the meeting. VOTE: (5-0-0)
The motion carried. The
meeting was adjourned at approximately =
&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
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING/December 7, 2010