SEL20110301.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

March 1, 2011

APPROVED &#= 8211; March 22, 2011

CALL TO ORDER – approximately 6:30pm

PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Viger, Mr. = Edmund Gleason, Mr. William McDevitt, Mr. Hal Lynde (arrived at approximately 7pm) Mr. Robert Haverty, = Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

ABSENT:

None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Cub Scout Pack 25 / Tiger D= en

MINUTES REVIEW

January = 25, 2011

MOTION:

(Gleason/Haverty) To approve the = January 25, 2011 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

-------------------------------------------------------<= /b>

February= 7, 2011

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Have= rty) To approve the February 7,= 2011 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(3-0-1) The mo= tion carried. Mr. Gleason abstai= ned.

-------------------------= -------------------------------

February= 15, 2011

MOTION:

(Gleason/Haver= ty) To approve the Fe= bruary 15, 2011 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

OPEN FORUM

Mr. Paul McDonough, 29 Mammoth Road commented that he used the new construction debris section of the Transfer Station facility. He found it= very efficient and more reasonable than bringing materials out of Town. He then discussed the proposed fire station and was hopeful that the voters approved its construction this year.

APPOINTMENT(S)

Discussion – Telephone Pole Assessment<= /p>

Mr. Gaydos noted that Senate Bill 133 was int= ended to extend an exemption which had been on the statute books since 1990; at t= hat time it exempted telecommunication companies so the Town would not be able = to tax the poles or fixtures on the poles.&nb= sp; He said it was due to expire last year, but if it expired in April, = 2011 the Town would then be able to tax the poles (for FairPoint). He spoke with Senator Chuck Morse,= who said he was in favor of the bill (extending the exemption). Senator Morse explained that it wa= s just another tax that once it went through the PUC would end up being more than = the Town tax because overhead etc .would be added in. Mr. Gaydos compiled and reviewed a breakdown of numbers in the event the Town was able to tax the poles provid= ing an example of what would be saved. He said Senator Morse said that the costs (when passed through the P= UC) would end up being more and would give a false savings to the user. Mr. Gaydos reviewed the other assessments the Town had for National Grid, Public Service, New England Pow= er and New England Hydro Transmission. He wanted to know the Selectmen’s opinion about taxing telecommunication poles so it could be forwarded to the Senator and Town’s Representatives.

Mr. Gleason stated that h= e read the Legislative bulletin and thought it made a good point in that all utili= ties were being taxed except Fair Point because of the deal that was made years ago. He didn’t feel the situation was fair. He said t= hey would have to wait and see what was decided, but believed there were other opportunities to tax Fair Point beyond the utility poles. Mr. Gaydos said that would be a different conversation. He explained that everyone was making comments now, they were seeking the Selectmen’s opinion prior to the vote. Mr. Gleason felt there should be a= level playing field. If poles were = going to be taxed for one company, they should be taxed for everyone. He presumed that Fair Point wasn&#= 8217;t giving their subscribers a break. Mr. Gaydos said they hadn’t had the tax since 1990, the feeling Senator M= orse had was as soon as they were taxed, Fair Point would go to the PUC and say = they needed a rate increase to pass the new tax through.

Mr. McDevitt felt an inte= resting point was being made, but commented that businesses (for the most part) pas= sed every tax onto its customers. He was a little bothered by the inconsistency. He believed he was in favor of tax= ing Fair Point because others were being taxed. He said a topic to explore (another time) would be that the Town didn’t tax Pennichuck’s infrastruc= ture in Town.   Mr. Gaydos sta= ted that a report had been done in 2006 on all the utilities in Town and Pennic= huck was taxed, however, he believed the point was that the tax didn’t equ= ate to the value.

Mr. Viger questioned if t= he Town had the ability to tax the telecommunication poles if the rest of the state chose not to. Mr. Gaydos repl= ied it was a state statute.

Mr. Gaydos said he was lo= oking for the Board to take a position, if they would like to.

Mr. Haverty stated he had= come to the meeting prepared not to support the tax, but having heard the statement about uniformity with other utilities, there was a compelling argument to support a tax. He saw both si= des of the argument. He said the Sel= ectmen could decide not to take a position. He said if the Board wanted to take a position he would vote in supp= ort of a tax.

Mr. Gleason believed the Selectmen should take a position as a matter of principle and notify the st= ate that the Town was not in favor of extending the exemption.

Mr. Viger also came to the meeting intending on letting the tax be as it was not realizing that other utilities were taxed throughout the Town.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Glea= son) To oppose the extension of the exemption (Senate Bill 133).

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carried. (The Bo= ard voted in the affirmative to oppose Senate Bill 133)

Potential Impact of Governor’s Proposed Changes=

Mr. Gleason believed he r= ead that the Governor was proposing to pass down the full cost of Retirement to the Town. He wanted to fully unde= rstand the ramifications it would have to the Town. Mr. Gaydos explained that the Governor’s position in the state of New Hampshire was not a strong one. In a conversation with Senator Chu= ck Morse, it was indicated that there were some plans put together to renovate= New Hampshire Retirement in terms of getting a higher contribution from the participants. For those peopl= e that aren’t fully vested, they want to change the rules to say that the pay out at the end wouldn’t be counted toward the final compensation; the= top five years of earnings would be used as opposed to the top three. They want to suspend the medical e= xpense account and have the money flow back into the program. Mr. Gaydos spoke with Senator Morse about the Governor’s comments and the budget that was being proposed. He said the Senator= and his colleges didn’t think it was fair to down shift all the costs and they would do everything they could to maintain what the state said they we= re going to pay. Senator Morse indicated it was quite a shock when they found out that all the Room and Me= als tax money was used to pay for a bond that the state borrowed to balance its budget; that money is now tied up for quite a while (at least ten years).

Mr. Gleason said the stat= e had proposed reducing their share and questioned if they had taken a position on that. Mr. Gaydos said it had = yet to be voted on. He said the Gove= rnor was proposing an even further cut. <= /span>Mr. Gleason asked if the Town would see any Rooms and Meals tax money. Mr. Gaydos said the Town would not receive anything this year. M= r. Gleason said the Town had budgeted for the worst case scenario and question= ed if there was anything else in the Governor’s budget that posed a potenti= al reduction. Mr. Gaydos said th= ere were a number of things, but the general feeling was that the state had down shifted enough. Mr. Gleason a= sked if there was adequate coverage in the 2011 budget to cover the Town. Mr. Gaydos believed the Town would= be covered, unless the state made the decision to not provide something like t= he Highway Block Grant.

Mr. Lynde arrived.

Article K Hearing(s)

The Selectmen convened as= the Board of Health with Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski as Chairman.

Mr. Zarnowski opened the = Board of Health meeting.

Map 30 Lot 11-166 - 9 Campbell Road / Owner(s): Kevin Robert & William Yonge

Mr. Zarnowski reviewed the requested waiver, which was to Section 295:15,A (lot size) to convert a sea= sonal property to a year round on a preexisting lot of record which does not meet= the current one acre size requirement. The existing lot area is approximately a half acre.

Mr. Shayne Gendron of Her= bert Associates came forward to present the proposed waiver to Article K. He described the lot, which was originally laid out in 1941 as camp lots.&= nbsp; A copy of the property deed, the recorded well release and the Artic= le K plan (showing surrounding properties) was provided to the Board for review.= The proposed septic design was submitted. Mr. Gendron discus= sed the lot (half acre in size), currently had a seasonal structure. They met with Mr. Zarnowski and di= d a test pit, which indicated the soils were excellent. They understood there were a few h= urdles to cross to be able to have a year-round home; such as lot size and lacking frontage. They worked with Mr. Zarnowski to determine the best way to bring everything together in connect= ion with the septic components. I= t was decided to put a new (state of the art/state approved) design together that would replace an existing dry well. They would also replace a sub-standard dug well with an Artesian well and would move it further back on the property. Mr. Gendron explained they had gon= e to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for being on a private road as well as for b= eing short on the frontage and acreage. <= /span>A variance was granted to the property.

Mr. Lynde questioned if a= ny conditions were placed on the variance.&nb= sp; Mr. Gendron answered no. He said the Zoning Board asked them how close they were to the lake. He replied that they weren’t= very close and were almost 1000ft. from the lake. There were no Shore Land issues or environmental issues. He said the lot met all the loading requirements; no waivers were being reques= ted from state. Mr. Gendron said = the only issue he had for the Board of Health was the fact that they were short= on acreage. He stated with their proposal they were creating a betterment to the property.

Mr. Zarnowski explained t= he waiver for lot size and what the pertaining section stated.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the existing system, which would probably be classified as a sub-standard system that would not be approved with today’s standards= . Mr. Gleason questioned what the applicant’s intention was for the dry well. Mr. Gendron stated it would be pum= ped out, crushed and filled. Mr. Gleason asked if the new system had received state approval. Mr. Gendron answered no; it would = need Board of Health approval prior to being sent to the state.

Mr. Lynde commented that = there was a well radius waiver and questioned what it was. Mr. Gendron stated that they recor= ded a well release; protective covenants. It was recognition to the owner that the well radius fell off their lot. In this case, almost all= the radius fell into and area that would be unusable for septic. Mr. Lynde confirmed that lot 11-16= 5 was vacant. Mr. Gendron answered = yes.

MOTION:

(Gleason/Viger) To grant the Arti= cle K waiver to Section 295:15,A for the requirement of a minimum lot area size= of one acre for Map 30 Lot 11-166.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

-----------------------------------= ----------------------------

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynde) To adjourn the B= oard of Health.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

The Selectmen reconvened = their meeting.

Property Change of Use: Map 30 Lot 11-166 - 9 Campb= ell Road

Mr. Shane Gendron of Herb= ert Associates met with the Selectmen to discuss 9 Campbell Road. They had been asked by Planning Di= rector Jeff Gowan to request of the Selectmen that a Building Permit be granted for the lot. They received approv= al from both the Zoning Board and the Board of Health and were now requesting a Building Permit for a new home to be built on a private road.

Mr. McDevitt said the Sel= ectmen had done so under the circumstances, but always had caveats attached. He said he wouldn’t object a= s long as the restrictions were in place. <= /span>Planning Director Jeff Gowan came forward. He said he couldn’t cite the specific regulation or conditions, but offered that the applicant had done everything they needed to do and received all the required relief. He said he wouldn’t sign a Building Permit unless the Board was okay with him doing so. Mr. McDevitt sa= id the conditions had to do with the private road itself and the Town’s liabilities. He said he wasn’t comfortable voting unless the exceptions were read into the record. Mr. Gaydos and Mr. Mc= Devitt went into the Selectmen’s office to review the regulations.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the request. Mr. Go= wan described the process for when a road was being constructed as a public road. In this case, he didn&#= 8217;t believe there was any intention of the road becoming public. Mr. Gendron stated they fully unde= rstood that it was a private road and there was no thought of it ever being a publ= ic road. They wouldn’t hav= e a problem with any type of condition or whatever the Town wanted to set forth with that regard.

Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Gayd= os returned from the Selectmen’s office. Mr. McDevitt read aloud the restrictions that had been imposed on ot= her people building on private roads: 1) the local Governing Body (Board of Selectmen) after review and comment by the Planning Board has voted to perm= it building; 2) Municipality assumes neither the responsibility for road maintenance nor liability for any damages arising out of road use; and 3) p= rior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant produces evidence that = notice of the limits of Municipal responsibility and liability have been recorded = in the County Registry of Deeds.

Mr. Gowan said the Town h= ad a similar situation with AT&T building a tower off Gumpas Hill Road (a piece that is s= ubject to gates and bars). He said f= or that project they had to provide a release of Municipal responsibility; the model for which could be shared with Mr. Gendron. He commented that they could modif= y the document, have their client sign it and submit such to the Town. Mr. Gendron didn’t object to= the suggestion and reiterated that they were fully aware that Campbell Road was private. Mr. Gaydos suggested that the docu= ment be shared with Attorney Ratigan (Town Counsel). Mr. Gowan suggested drafting a gen= eric document that could be reviewed by Attorney Ratigan and used in the future.= There was no objection by the Sele= ctmen to have a generic document drafted for review.

Mr. Viger stated that a g= eneric document would be drafted for review by Counsel, and signature by the appli= cant and the Selectmen for recording at the Registry.

Jeff Gowan, on Behalf of the Highway Safety Committee (‘HSC’):

Planning Director Jeff Go= wan and Fire Chief James Midgley came forward to discuss the following items that w= ere reviewed by the HSC.

Street light addition to Winterberry/Hillcrest area (at the entranc= e of the Boulder Hills development) – Mr. Gowan discussed the proposed location for the street light. A resident sent in a Service Request seeking a street light in the area. After review/discussion by the HSC= , it was their consensus that such a street light would not increase public safe= ty because the intersection had sufficient sight distance to see approaching traffic. Chief Midgley said in looking at the cost benefit ratio for having a light at the location, inclu= ding costs associated with installation, maintenance and powering, by far outwei= ghed the benefits. There were only= two additional houses past the intersection.&n= bsp; Those factors didn’t warrant the expenditure of installing a l= ight.

The Selectmen supported t= he HSC’s decision. A respo= nse letter indicating the results of the meeting would be forwarded to the citi= zen making the request; Mr. Gaydos and Mr. Gowan would work together.

Route 38 (at the intersection of Old Gage Hill Road) Electronic Sign=    and   No trucking sign removal (fr= om Young’s Crossing)– Mr. Gowan noted that Young’s Cross= ing currently had a No Trucking sign (for historical reasons due to a past busi= ness in the location). Chief Midgl= ey stated that the (no trucking) sign may have had a benefit many years ago, b= ut presently it was adding to the traffic congestion and hazards in the area of Route 38 at Old Gage Hill Road. He said in discussing solutions to the area, the first thing should be to remo= ve the No Trucking sign and stop telling very large vehicles to go into a hazardous situation that was already recognized as a hazard.

Mr. Gowan discussed the a= rea and felt it would be prudent for the Town to get the situation onto the Nashua Regional Planning Commission’s (‘NRPC’) ‘radar̵= 7; so it could then be on the Department of Transportation’s (‘DOT’) ‘radar’.&n= bsp; He said there had been some conversation by the HSC to establish electronic signs at both approaches to the road. He wasn’t sure how it would = be funded, but believed grant money was being sought after. Mr. Gowan said another item being discussed was a flashing beacon light suspended across the road at the top = of the hill warning of the approaching intersection. He knew other options had been discussed, but felt the items brought forward (addition of electronic signs= and the removal of no trucking sign) would be achievable in the short term comp= ared to the state’s ten year plan.

Mr. Gleason questioned if= there were any restrictions for the Town installing temporary signs given Route 38 was a state road. Mr. Gowan s= aid the Town would have to seek approval for any signage along Route 38. Mr. Gleason said the No Trucking s= igns could be removed from Young’s Crossing. He questioned the type of lights b= eing proposed. Mr. Gowan said the = lights were similar to what was deployed around the schools. He said the HSC supported the sign= s, but they were unsure of how the costs would be vetted. Mr. Gaydos said he had a discussio= n with Police Chief Roark who had experience in other communities who used the electronic signs. He explaine= d how the electronic signs functioned noting they were effective. He said the cost may be approximat= ely $24,000 for two signs (including installation/hook up). He believed the cost of the yellow beacon light at the Keyes = Hill Road/Mammoth Road intersection as being approximately $12,000 to $15,000. The Town could approach its Senator/Legislature to find a cost match.

Mr. Viger didn’t wa= nt to see the electronic signs become less effective by having too many around Town. He didn’t feel th= at adding them to Old Gage Hi= ll Road would make the electronic signs at the school less effective, but wanted to keep the concern on the radar.

Mr. Haverty questioned if= there were any problems with the turning radius or lane infractions with trucks coming from Young’s Crossing heading south on Route 38. Mr. Gowan said no engineering had = been done at the intersection. Chi= ef Midgley stated they had no issues with Engine One, which was very long and = had a low turn radius. He said the issue that would be present was the preparation to make the left turn. He suggested possibly minor engine= ering or street markings to get people in position to make the turn. Mr. Haverty stated he was in compl= ete support of the electronic signs and removing the No Trucking signs to help alleviate some of the issues. He asked = if there had been any contemplation of shutting down the piece of road at Old Gage Hill Road and Route 38 to through traffic. Mr. Gowan said there had been discussions regarding the options and was sure the residents would have issues to discuss.&nb= sp; Chief Midgley would be against closing the road because it would add response time to the Fire Department’s vehicles. Mr. Haverty said he would want to = leave it open for emergency response. He questioned if the sight distance was reasonable by any standard for traffic exiting from Old Gage Hill= Road onto Route 38. Mr. Gowan said= he couldn’t answer. He off= ered that perhaps at 40mph it was acceptable, but the average speed seemed to be greater. Mr. Haverty said it = was a very dangerous intersection and felt something more than signs and offering= a different route should be done. He supported requesting the state’s help.

Mr. McDevitt felt there s= hould be a speed limit change (reduction to 35mph) in the area along with the additi= on of the electronic signs. He believed the Town should move as expeditiously as possible. He discussed his experiences with = the intersection.

Mr. Haverty said he would= be in favor of doing anything to get the state’s attention to address the situation. Mr. Gaydos comment= ed that the Town had requested a light at Keyes Hill and Mammoth Road for awhile, but only a= fter there was a horrible crash was the state responsive. Chief Midgley commented that it wa= s just a matter of time before something serious happens at the Old Gage Hill Road intersection.

Mr. Viger felt having the blinking light was good, but felt the Town should come up with a long-term solution. Mr. Gowan said the intersection would be spoken of in the NRPC long term planning discussion, where all the possibilities for improving the intersection could be reviewe= d.

Mr. Lynde felt removing t= he No Trucking sign would be a good move (clarification made at the March 22, 2011 meeting that there wasn’t a prohibition of trucks on Young’s Crossing, it was trucks over 3 axles) .&nb= sp; He questioned if the road was sturdy enough. He asked if thought had been given= to not allowing left turns from Old Gage Hill Road onto Route 38. Chief Midgley said if left turns weren’t allowed other concerns would arise, such as where would a veh= icle go if it came to the intersection; he said the vehicle would take the left turn. Another situation would= be that vehicles traveling on Route 38 wouldn’t be expecting to have any= one come from the intersection. He believed by removing the No Trucking sign (from Young’s Crossing) wou= ld take the most dangerous vehicles out of the Old Gage Hill Road intersection.

Mr. Gleason questioned if= it were possible to post (on Old G= age Hill Road) a sign indicating No Trucks. Chief Midgley felt that was a reas= onable option. Mr. Gleason felt the situation was exacerbated by the store (across the street from the Old Gage Hill Road intersection). He asked any o= f the temporary measures (removing No Trucking sign, making modifications to Young’s Crossing, adding warning lights) would qualify under the High= way Block Grant money. Mr. Gaydos stated there were always small grants, the Town would have to find one that fit. Mr. Gleason asked how it= could be paid for this year; if there were funds currently available in the Highw= ay Block Grant. Mr. Gaydos answe= red yes. He believed there were s= ome alternatives that could be explored. = He said the key would be to speak to the state. Mr. Gleason recognized that the suggestions may not be a long-term solution, but felt the Selectmen should = go with the HSC’s recommendation to put in the speed deterrent lights and remove the signs from Young’s Crossing and if possible to restrict eg= ress of trucks from Old Gage Hill. He said the long-term solution would be to have Mr. Gowan contact NRPC to get = onto their plan and to petition the state to put a blinking yellow light. Mr. Gaydos felt having the state p= ut money toward the lights could happen quickly. He would work with Mr. Gowan to se= e what money was available.

Mr. Lynde wanted to under= stand the associated costs and the source of the funds. He was in favor of having no throu= gh trucking.

Mr. Haverty questioned if= the Board should consider area resident feedback prior to inverting traffic patterns by taking down a No Trucking sign and possibly not allowing through trucks at another intersection. He asked if there was an estimate for the number of trucks that went through t= he area. Mr. Gowan didn’t = have data on the number of trucks. He believed some residents would comment that Young’s Crossing was not an ideal road based on its topography; however, where it met Route 38, it was large and flat. He felt it would be worthwhile to request public input. He noted that he had traffic signal analysis data for the (Old= Gage Hill Road) intersection that could be used when discussing it with DOT. He sa= id getting the store owner involved with DOT discussions would be a good idea. He believed he could coordinate a meeting with the DOT and the Town to discuss the situation.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the suggested alternatives. Mr. McDevitt said trucks should be informed at the beginning of the route; possibly creating a ‘truck route’. He believed as part of the Town= 217;s membership with NRPC they conducted traffic surveys and suggested gathering data as to the number of trucks coming through. Mr. Gowan said they had data for t= he intersection and traffic count, but didn’t believe trucks were culled out. He would confer with NRPC. Mr. McDevitt agreed wit= h Mr. Haverty that the neighbors would have to be notified and asked for their feedback. He questioned if th= ere was any way for the access to the store along Route 38 could be more organized. Mr. Gowan said he = spoke to the DOT when at the site; it might make sense to confine the access of t= he store to a point that met the intersection. He had conversations with the owne= r of the property that was of the opinion that the fact the access was big and o= pen allowed trucks to turn around. He suggested speaking with District V to determine what could and could not be done at the intersection.

Mr. Lynde suggested that = the Selectmen have an agenda item (at the next meeting) to vote to remove the No Trucking sign (on Young’s Crossing) so if anyone had issues they would have time to speak with the Selectmen.&nbs= p;

Jeff Gowan, Planning Director Discussions regarding the followin= g:

Main Street Bridge- Mr. Gowan sent the Selectmen an = e-mail regarding the bridge. He said= at the last Technical Advisory Committee (‘TAC’) he found out that= the state had moved forward the Main Street bridge, which had been on the stateR= 17;s 10-year plan as a red-listed bridge. The state made the recommendation that the bridge move forward with construction, full bridge replacement, in the year 2015. Mr. Gowan said the Town needed to officially respond (in writing) prior to the next TAC meeting in April that= it supported the project. The pr= oject estimate was $2,494,000, but would be at no cost to the Town (80% federal/2= 0% state).

Mr. Lynde wanted to know = if the state believed the bridge to be inadequate. Mr. Gowan replied that issues were= found with the deck. He said he hadn’t seen a plan and didn’t know if the plan was to replace t= he entire bridge with a span bridge, or to replace the underpinnings. Mr. Lynde assumed that the potenti= al impact of water flow would be reviewed.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan suspected that any engineer designing a bridge would take great care not to design the bridge to act as a dam. He noted that a meeting would be h= eld Friday to discuss flooding/bridges in Town at which representatives from the state as well as Town officials would be present. Mr. Gaydos asked that information = regarding the culverts be brought to the meeting.&nb= sp; He wanted to see if the state had any flow records. Mr. Gowan said he would find what = he could.

Mr. McDevitt felt the Tow= n should respond quickly and questioned if the Selectmen had to take a vote. Mr. Viger suggested that the Board= make a motion.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Have= rty) To allow Mr. Gowan to advise the state to move forward with the replacement = of the bridge. The Selectmen strongly supported the project.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

Municipal Construction Project Policy – Mr. Gowan provide= d a draft policy for Selectmen review. Mr. Gaydos commented that the Selectmen discussed a desire to have a policy and questioned if there were any questions regarding the components.= He said it should be sent to the Planning Board for review as well. <= /span>He told Mr. Gowan he believed all the inspectors should be present for the pre-construction meeting.

Mr. Gleason felt there wa= s a definite need for a policy that mandated review by the various departments = of a municipal structure to avoid problems.&nbs= p; He was in favor of the policy. In reviewing the policy language, he questioned what constituted an addition. Mr. Gowan said if a= n item fell into a grey area, he would make a recommendation to the Selectmen, who would in turn make a determination. Mr. Gleason asked if the Town’s inspectors and the Fire and Po= lice Chiefs were in agreement with the proposed policy. Mr. Gowan replied that they hadn&#= 8217;t seen the policy yet, but didn’t feel there would be any objections.

Mr. McDevitt provided sug= gested changes to the wording. Mr. G= leason recommended that the Selectmen approve the policy based on the suggested ch= anges and allow Mr. Gowan to proceed.

Mr. Gleason made a motion= to approve the policy. Mr. Gowan= told the Selectmen he wanted it to be clear that he wasn’t seeking a proje= ct manager role. Mr. McDevitt se= conded the motion. Mr. Lynde wanted = to see the changes in writing. He suggested that the Selectmen approve the policy in its current state and br= ing amendments forth at the next meeting. Mr. Gleason accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. Mr. McDevitt amended his second.

MOTION:

(Gleason/McDev= itt) To approve the Municipal Construction Project Policy.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.



The Selectmen will review= an amended version of the policy, containing the suggested changes, at their n= ext meeting. Mr. Gowan will share= the policy with the affected people. Department heads and inspectors should sign-off on the policy indica= ting they were aware of it.

Nashua Regional Planning Commission (‘NRPC’) Long Range Transportation Plan – Mr. Gowan said there were several projects = that he would like to be added to NRPC’s long-term plan. 1) Willow Street Bridge; 2) Old Ga= ge Hill Road / Route 38 intersection; 3) Mammoth Road and Sherburne Road intersection. He wanted to kn= ow if the Selectmen had other projects they wanted him to get on NRPC’s rad= ar.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the Willow Stree= t bridge and possible solutions that would be discussed with professionals and the state.

NRPC Build-out analysis – Mr. Gowan said he would be suggesting to NRPC that the build-out analysis be revisited based on new information and since the Town had acquired land for conservation purposes.= He said even with updating the information, it should only be used as a broad tool and cautioned anyone looking at population projections to treat it as such. He said he wasn’t sure if th= e Town could have the information updated as part of their annual fee to NRPC, but suggested to get a number for what it would cost and possibly entertain revisiting it next year.

OTHER BUSINESS

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR / SELECTMEN’S REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos told the Selec= tmen he met with Town Counsel and the assessing company regarding several matters.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said one area that could be rev= iewed was if the Town gave an easement on its property to a utility company (or anybody), that easement had a value that could be taxed. There were certain actions that the Selectmen would have to take; he was working to find out exactly what those actions were. Mr. Gaydos said= he was also working on some abatements that were in their final stages.

Mr. Haverty and Mr. Lynde= had no report.

Mr. Gleason said a Pelham= contingency attended the Legislative Session during the last week. He said it was very informative and useful.

Mr. McDevitt said he had = done (with Selectmen approval) a cable television program reviewing warrant articles. He appreciated the department heads and others for spending their time having discussions. He said there was a question raised during the program and he told the (anonymous) person it would be answered = at the next Selectmen meeting. T= he question was: “How much money has been spent already on architects fe= es for the fire station?” = Mr. Gaydos stated the amount spent was $252,000 (for three architectural review= s).

Mr. Viger stated that the= new Town Reports were available. = This year the report was dedicated to Ms. Charlotte Moore; a formal presentation= had been made. Ms. Moore was very appreciative and taken aback.



REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

(Lynde/Gleason) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, c (Matters which, if discussed publicly, would affect adversely the reputation of any person)<= /p>

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Viger-Yes;= Mr. Gleason-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. Haverty-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 8:55 pm.

The Board returned to public session at approximately 9:50 pm.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Haverty) To seal the mi= nutes of the non-public session indefinitely.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Have= rty) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:50 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