SEL20120131

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

January 31, 2012

APPROVED &#= 8211; February 14, 2012

CALL TO ORDER – approximately 6:30pm

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Mr. Edmund Gleason, Mr.= Doug Viger, Mr. Robert Haverty, = Mr. William McDevitt,

Mr. Hal Lynde (arrived = after the meeting commenced), Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MINUTES REVIEW

January = 17, 2012

MOTION:

(Viger/McDevitt) To approve the <= st1:date Month=3D"1" Day=3D"17" Year=3D"2012" w:st=3D"on">January 17, 2012 meeting minutes as modified.

VOTE:

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

OPEN FORUM

None.

APPOINTMENTS

City of Nashua Acquisition of Pennichuck Waters – Recognition to Jean-Guy Bergeron – Former Water District Member

Mr. Gaydos stated on January 25, 2012 the City of Nashua formed a for-profit corporation which bought all of the shares of Pennichuck Corporation. They had their f= irst meeting (public session) on January 25, 2012 to provide a quick overview of the components of Pennichuck. A board (Pennichu= ck Board) was selected from people who were not elected officials of the City = of Nashua, and who a= re from the water system, and met with the officers of Pennichuck Corporation to re= view the operations and financials. The Water District (Mr. Gaydos is= a member) has yet to appoint a member to the Pennichuck Board; Mr. Gaydos is pursuing that seat.

Mr. Gaydos explained that approximately nine years ago Jean-Guy Bergeron (former Selectman and State Representative) took an active interest in the Water District and forming such. A Warrant Article was approved by voters (years ago) to participate in the Water District. The whole process has taken many twists/turns, but has ended now with a for-profit corporation wholly owning Pennichuck, having the same people who had worked there continue on. Those employees are Pennichuck employees, not municipal employees. Mr. Gaydos said there was a lot of work and perseverance by a lot of people, most of which was during the five years Mr. Bergeron served on the board. He wanted to give Mr. Bergeron recognition for everything he had done.

Mr. Jean-Guy Bergeron came forward. Mr. Gaydos presented= Mr. Bergeron with a commemorative glass. Mr. Bergeron said when he received the call, hearing what had happen= ed, it made his day. He discussed= how that the process began when Pennichuck had wanted to sell the water district possibly to another country. = He said there were five or six communities asked to participate and was person= ally honored to be asked to be asked to be on the board. He was pleased that Pelham would continue to have water access. He said it showed that communities could work together to make things happen.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He was excited at the outcome and thanked the Selectmen for inviting him.&nb= sp;

The Selectmen thanked Mr. Bergeron for all his contributions to the Town, especially for his involvem= ent with the water district. Mr. Gleason said it was a significant accomplishment that was appreciated.

PUBLIC HEARING: 1^ST of two hearings regarding a proposal to purchase property of approximately = 14 acres on Hinds Lane, located at Tax Map 20 Lots 2-113-2 and 2-113-3. These lots, if acquired, will be f= or use as conservation land.

Conservation Chairman Pau= l Gagnon came forward to discuss the proposal to purchase property (14 acres) on Gum= pas Pond. The property contained a 15-foot pedestrian easement to Gumpas Pond and approximately 1200 linear fe= et of road frontage on Hinds = Lane. He showed the location of the parc= el. An aerial view and tax map was rev= iewed for better detail of the proposed lot and its proximity to other land owned= by the Town. Consideration was b= eing given to the concept of possibly having a small gravel parking area, for approximately 4-5 cars, and having it be access to the pond for small (car = top type) water craft. This would= be somewhat self-regulated by the roughness of the easement. Mr. Gagnon discussed the appraisal= of the property that came in at $285,000; for which the Conservation Commission would offer 70% of the appraised value $200,000. He said if it were not for the eas= ement, the Conservation Commission would have second thoughts about spending the specified amount of money for 14 acres.&nb= sp; It would be the most expensive (per acre) they’ve purchased, b= ut felt the value was in the easement and people within the Town would be given controlled access to Gumpas Pond.

Mr. Gagnon stated they we= re proposing to protect 1200ft. of Hinds Lane, which was currently subdivided = as two house lots, but theoretically could contain six lots given there were fourteen acres. From a Conser= vation perspective, Mr. Gagnon believed there was merit in protecting the frontage= and the wetland that drained from behind Hinds Lane into Gumpas Pond. Importantly, he felt the value of = the easement had to be weighed in the decision. He noted that the standard package= of backup information was previously provided to the Selectmen for review. That same information was availabl= e for public review at the Planning Office. Mr. Gaydos said he would see that the information was posted on the Conservation Commission website.

Mr. Gleason opened the di= scussion to public input.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bill Cook, resident o= f Hinds Lane, applauded the Conservation Commission for purchasing land. He felt it was the best thing they= could do, but was very worried about the walking easement to the pond. He said the general public didn= 217;t realize that the pond wasn’t a natural pond; it was created by a dam. The dam was still in pla= ce and the maintenance cost for such was done by twenty families. He said those twenty families pay = the costs, perform continual maintenance and deal with the state. He believed the last maintenance c= ost was approximately $10,000. Mr= . Cook commented that the residents (an association) had been paying for, and maintaining the dam, and now the general public was being asked to be able = to use it, all while the residents continue to pay for it. Equitably it didn’t seem fai= r to him. He said if the associati= on didn’t take care of the dam there would be no pond. He reiterated that it didn’t= seem fair that the association pays for and maintains the dam and now everyone w= ould be allowed to come in. Mr. Co= ok questioned if there was a way for those using the dam to contribute to its maintenance. He also noted th= at the residents pay taxes on the dam and provided copies of two tax bills for a property on Hinds Lane (one on the water, one not on the water). He showed that there was differenc= e in tax calculations; the tax for the property located on the water was much higher= in comparison to a property that was not.&nbs= p; Mr. Cook was concerned that boats from other ponds may possibly carry invasive species in with them. He was also concerned with people coming in and partying on the island and wal= king the dam. He discussed the pro= blems with the boats accessing the water. He spoke about the conservation parking area at the other end of the pond, which was used duri= ng the winter, although it wasn’t supposed to be. He said conservation couldn’t control the area. Mr. Cook no= ted that Hinds Lane would not be able to handle increased traffic or vehicle parking. He reiterated that he people resid= ing around the pond paid for maintenance and felt it was unfair for people to c= ome in and use it without paying for it. He asked that the Selectmen take that fact into consideration.

Mr. Lynde arrived.

Mr. Bob Yarmo, 21 Bush Hi= ll Road (east shore of Gumpas Pond) commented that he didn’t have the direct access to the pond and wouldn’t have the day-to-day activity that som= e of the residents would. He provi= ded the Selectmen with a brief history of the area. He said a pond association was cre= ated in 1993 to purchase the dam from Don Foss (for $1). The transfer of the dam to the pond association cost approximately $10,000 due to surveying fees, subdivision f= ees and legal fees. Mr. Yarmo dis= cussed the problems that occurred with the maintenance of the dam. He said if the association hadn= 217;t maintained the area the Conservation Commission wouldn’t have been interested in the area because it would have been a mud hole. He said there currently areas arou= nd the pond that couldn’t be navigated and were approximately 2ft.-3ft. deep. He said it wasn’t= as big as it looked on paper for boating activities. He spoke about the impacts of havi= ng jet skis on the water. It was his opinion that the residents didn’t own the pond and it was an incredib= le resource that should be shared, however he was conflicted in the fact that = the residents had invested money and would have to continue doing so for maintenance. He hoped that th= ere was some way for the Town to help create a win-win situation, either with a= tax abatement with the dam, or help with maintenance or weed control or by draf= ting restrictions for the pond. Mr. Yarmo said he appreciated the Town/Selectmen supporting the Conservation Commission.

Mr. Pat Gendron, 579 Bridge Street, believed that the proposed conservation purchase would have the least impact to the pond. He said if a developer = were to purchase the land and build homes, each home on that piece of land would have an easement to the pond. He noted that the conservation plan called for a 15ft. wide path that would al= low people to launch a canoe or kayak, which wouldn’t impact the pond as = few people would use it. He furth= er noted there would be no boat launch for motor boats or jet skis so there wo= uld be no noise issues. Mr. Gendr= on ended by stated he felt that every pond in Town should have a public right-of-way.

Mr. Doug Shawver, 65 Heather Lee Lane, told the Selectmen that as a resident of Pelham, he would enjoy fishing at = the pond with his son. He felt in= fairness, it seemed since the Town would benefit from having the easement/access to t= he pond that the residents should be helped out with the cost of maintaining t= he dam.

Mr. Keith Reagan, 39 Hinds Lane was concerned about the restrictions. He said if the purchase were allowed, he hoped the easement would be= for Town residents only with usage being from dawn to dusk. He wanted to know what his liabili= ty would be in the event someone was injured on the property. He was concerned about an of overf= low vehicles from the parking lot and questioned if that parking area was for u= se of the easement only, or if it could be used for the other conservation land.

Chad Beauregard of 43 Hin= ds Lane and Tim Beauregard of 59 H= inds Lane came forward to discuss their concerns. Mr. T. Beauregard, who resided at = the last house on the road, was concerned with the use of the roadway causing additional traffic. He said at its narrowest point the road was 13.5ft. wide and with snow banks it was reduced to 10ft. wide. He believed at some point the road= would need proper drainage and widened. He reiterated his comments regarding vehicle access on the road. He then stated his concern with emergency vehicles not being able to access his home due to vehicle parking. Mr. C. Beauregard discussed the Milfoil in the pond and noted that it was nearly over infeste= d by weeds. He didn’t want t= o see any more contributed to it. M= r. T. Beauregard questioned if the actual location of the easement had been confi= rmed because it may be through wetlands. He wanted to know if foot traffic was capable. If the area was in the wetlands, t= hey would be harmed with the activity. <= /span>

Mr. Gleason said a site w= alk was conducted and didn’t have the impression that the area was wetlands.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the Selectmen would take everything being said into consideration and hold an additional public hear= ing on February 14^th. =

Mr. David Chadwick, 4 Hinds Lane stated that the road needed to be addressed. He was concerned with an increase in traffic. He applauded the Conservation Commission’s work and understood how they were trying to link parcels together. He didn’t hav= e a problem with a small controlled parking area. Mr. Chadwick felt it would be nice= for the Town to help (in some form) the folks that had been paying for the dam = for years.

Mr. Gagnon said they were= looking for common ground and a way to make the situation work for both parties to = have a win-win. One thought was to= stop charging the pond association taxes on the dam. Mr. Gagnon said he would personally commit to help limit motor boat traffic.&n= bsp; He stated he was very familiar with Spectacle Pond, which was like Gumpas Pond in that it was a natural pond enhanced by a dam. He discussed the work done at Spec= tacle Pond dam, dike and spill way that was done by donated money. He read a partial list of donors a= nd commented they wouldn’t have donated if the pond didn’t have pu= blic access. He believed Gumpas Po= nd could be shared and done in a way that protected the rights and costs that = the residents paid and at the same time provided limited access to the natural treasure that existed in the Town. <= /span>

Mr. Lynde was familiar wi= th Gumpas Pond and felt it was gem that the Town should help preserve. He said by acquiring the land and = having the proper conditions in place it would be a step toward helping to do so.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He didn’t feel the road shou= ld be an issue for this project, but felt it was something the Town should look at and request a comment from the Road Agent.= He didn’t feel that the easement would increase the boat traff= ic (beyond kayaks and canoes) on the pond. Regulating watercraft could be done as a separate issue from the land. He said the Selectmen w= ould take the comments about the dam under advisement.

Mr. McDevitt said it was = a good idea to waive taxes and commented that the Selectmen were tightly constrain= ed by State Law as to when/where/and on whom they could waive taxes. His guess was that they couldnR= 17;t waive the taxes. He recalled = that the voters approved weed removal on Long Pond, but the reason was because t= here was a lot of public access. M= r. McDevitt said it was in the Town’s interest to preserve the pond beca= use it was a significant natural resource.&nbs= p; He discussed the parking and didn’t feel a trailer would be ab= le to back down the access. He s= aid if the land was acquired, he would want to leave the area largely unimproved.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He commented that it might be poss= ible to control access ‘by permit only’ and address some of the conc= erns residents had.

Mr. Viger believed the Se= lectmen should ask Counsel’s opinion regarding the liability of the easement = in the event someone was to be injured.

Mr. Haverty said when he = had gone down Hinds Lane it felt like he was entering into a small community and appreciated why the residents wanted to maintain the area.&nbs= p; He commented that the area was in flux and regardless of what happen= ed, something would change. He was conflicted what the right course of action would be. He appreciated that the body of wa= ter was owned by the state and that Fish & Game felt it was their legal man= date for any body of water over ten acres to be accessed by the public. He appreciated the need to do cert= ain improvements, and to possibly alleviate some of the financial burden of the= residents in maintaining the dam. Mr. H= averty felt the struggle was to find the balance and determine what was right, hav= ing the least impact to residents.

Mr. Gleason said he was h= ighly conflicted. He saw that Conse= rvation was a good steward and if they took the land they would take care of it and institute controls that would be followed.= He was challenged with the personal input and weighing the public good. He commented that they reviewed the site and saw that the easement was very restrictive. He didn’t foresee any opport= unity for boats to access the pond. He felt it was an opportunity to work together because there was a distinct possibility that someone would buy the land, or develop it. Mr. Gleason didn’t feel there would be much traffic and it could be controlled by having restrictive park= ing and monitoring the land. He believed it would be a win-win if everyone worked together. He stated there would be another m= eeting in two weeks. The Selectmen w= ere given a lot of information to digest. Mr. Gleason said he would think about everything that was said. He asked Mr. Gaydos to look = into the state’s requirements. He asked Mr. Gagnon what type of concessions he could discuss regarding restri= cted access.

Mr. McDevitt wanted to be= sure that the acquisition of public access by the Town wouldn’t obligate t= hem to open it up to other residents because it was a state owned body of water. He suggested seeking Counsel’s opinion to find out if there were any strings attached by t= he Town owning a public easement. He would like to pursue (with Mr. Gaydos) a framework for a permitting process.

Mr. Haverty worried about= the approach based on the RSA’s saying that bodies of water over a certain size were public bodies. He s= aid the state had already taken the position that if there was a public body wa= ter, it was their legal mandate to open access to those bodies of water. Mr. McDevitt wanted to know if the= Town could set rules on an easement that it owned.

Mr. Gleason closed the pu= blic hearing. He advised the publi= c that the Selectmen would convene in two weeks to conduct the second public heari= ng; after which he expected that the Selectmen would make a decision. He said if the public had any addi= tional information it could be submitted via e-mail or Mr. Gaydos. He thanked everyone for expressing= their opinions.

Planning Director, Jeff Gowan: State project update – = Town Center Round-a-bout

Planning Director Jeff Go= wan reported that there had been a meeting with the State on January 19, 2012. He reviewed the funding, which was= entirely through a Federal ‘earmark’; no local fees would be spent to bu= ild the roundabouts. Over the pas= t few years there have been several meetings to ensure communications were kept flowing on the project. The Right-of-way Bureau (Division of the Department of Transportation ‘DOT’) was in the final stages of completing the strip right-of= -way purchases required for the project. At this time the DOT believes the roundabouts to be a two-year proje= ct with all of the work anticipated to be completed by the end of 2014 construction season. The DOT = will advertise the RFQ for project construction bids on May 22, 2012; those bids will be opene= d June 14, 2012.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Following the bid opening a meetin= g will be arranged between the DOT and the winning contractor and the Town team to begin to review the timing of the schedule. The first phase will be the utilit= y and drainage work. The roundabout= at the entrance to the Village Green will be constructed first; the roundabout= in front of the existing fire station will be more involved. There are no impacts anticipated f= or 2012 Old Home Day and the DOT will work to minimize any impacts for the 2013 Old Home Day. The project will include landscaping; the roadway between both islands will be lined with new trees and sidewalks. The next meeting between the DOT and the Town would be held March 15, 2012; after the bid opening = there would be more frequent meetings.

Mr. Gleason said there wo= uld be some disruption of the present fire station once it is ascertained when Fair Point would come in and tear up the utilities in front of the fire station. He recalled it would= be a two week impact on the front doors; the Fire Chief indicated in the past th= at he could tolerate it. He said= the proximity of the front doors (to the fire station) would negate any opportu= nity to bring apparatus in and out of that front door. Mr. Gleason said the project was c= oming and the money was earmarked by the Federal Government.

Information regarding the Roundabout project will be posted on the Town website. Mr. Gowan said if anyone would like information they were welcome to contact the Planning Department.

The Selectmen recessed th= eir meeting and convened as the Board of Health, with Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski as Chairman.

Deputy Health Officer, Paul Zarnowski: Article K Hearings

Owner(s): Warren & Deborah Lafferty, Map 23-11-363 / 3 Webster Avenue Extension

Mr. Zarnowski reviewed the requested waivers: Section 295-15, minimum land areas where 1 acre is requi= red; Section 2.4 of the Pelham Well Ordinance, where 20ft. is required to a prop= erty line for well placement and 5ft. is being proposed.

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben= chmark Engineering came forward to discuss the Article K request. He said they had come before the B= oard on May 10, 2011<= /st1:date> to discuss the property. It w= as apparent at that time a variance was needed in order to convert the structu= re to the proposed use. In June,= 2011 a variance was granted (Case #ZO2011-000019) to take the existing structure and make it into a single-fa= mily dwelling. Prior to Mr. Laffer= ty purchasing the property in the late 1990’s there was a seasonal camp = that had existed on the property; photographs were submitted for review. Mr. Maynard said there had been so= me miscommunications as to what Mr. Lafferty needed, but it was always Mr. Lafferty’s intention to build a structure on the lot and someday live= on the property. The lot was a d= ouble lot and larger than many of the other lots in the area. As part of the septic design crite= ria they were able to fit a conventional septic system design and meet all of t= he setbacks as they related to the actual field construction.

Mr. Zarnowski asked for a brief history of the structure that was all= owed on the property. Mr. Maynard = said there was a permit in the late 1990’s to raze the existing home/camp. Photographs of that structure had been submitted as part of their application package. Mr. Zarnowski asked if the existing garage was set up as a potential future home. Mr. Maynard said the plans submitt= ed with the application showed a garage under situation with a gabled wall home (living space above the garage). The structure was built per the submitted plans; it has been a phased development over time. It didn’t become apparent that the process was missed for the structure until the septic system design was being done. Mr. Zarnowski asked why the well w= as being moved 5ft. to the property line versus the required 20ft. Mr. Maynard replied that the locat= ion offered the most protection for the proposed well; there were a number of neighboring well radii from the properties directly abutting the land and a drainage way in close proximity that offered 75ft. of protection. By allowing the well in the propos= ed location would offer double protection by overlapping other wells in the ar= ea and gained the protection of the buffer from the wetland.

Mr. McDevitt asked how Mr. Zarnowski felt about the proposal. Mr. Zarnowski said initially his b= iggest concern was affording the well the maximum protection. His concerns were eased after havi= ng a discussion with Mr. Maynard to review the whole situation, locating the adjacent wells and showing their protective radiuses. He said the area had decent soils = and was large enough to handle the proposed system. He said with the adjacent wells be= ing in the general location, it would afford protection. He noted that a septic system wouldn’t be able to be in that location because of the well radiuses = and seasonal wetlands.

Mr. Gleason reviewed the meeting minutes from a previous meeting. He confirmed that Mr. Lafferty res= ided in one house and was constructing the proposed building on the second lot.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Maynard stated that Mr. Laffer= ty intended to retire in the home being constructed. He had been doing the work out of pocket, making it a slow process. He said they were at the septic system permitting stage at this point. Mr. Gleason asked if Mr. Lafferty = would retain ownership of both lots, or if he would sell it off. Mr. Maynard believed the lot would= be sold and Mr. Lafferty would retire in the home being constructed, which wou= ld be a smaller home in the back lot. Mr. Gleason confirmed that the building would be +250ft. from water. Mr. Maynard answered y= es. Mr. Gleason asked for clarificatio= n of the type of structure. Mr. Ma= ynard said the permit for the structure on the lot in question was for a garage w= ith a room above it. <= /span>

Mr. Lynde asked if there was a subdivision involved in creating the lot. Mr. Maynard said the lot= was prior to zoning (1929); there were a number of lots combined to make the lot. Mr. Lynde was bothered b= y the building permit, which was pulled for a garage with storage above. He asked if the building permit was amended prior to the structure being built above the garage. Mr. Maynard said the permit was al= ways for a garage with storage/room above. He stated that the plans on file showed exactly what was built. He said if Mr. Lafferty understood= at the time that he should have applied for a permit to rebuild the house, he would have done so. He said b= ecause the construction wasn’t happening all at once, the permits were pulled differently, but the intention had always been for Mr. Lafferty to retire in the home being built. Mr. Lyn= de asked if the lot met all the other setbacks. Mr. Maynard said it met the setbac= ks that would be required for a standard house lot.

Mr. Lynde said the Board normally discussed improving what was in pla= ce; this was a case where an additional system was being installed. He asked if the proposed system was consistent with others in the area. Mr. Zarnowski said the proposed system was stone and pipe. It was larger in size than the mod= ern technology systems and met the Town and State criteria. Mr. Lynde asked if there were any = issues regarding the depth to the water table or seasonal high water table. Mr. Zarnowski answered no, the are= a was relatively high and dry where the system itself was located.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Gleason) To approve the Article K waiver request on Map 23 Lot 11-363 – Arti= cle K 295-15 minimum land area and also to approve the Well Ordinance waiver Section 2.4 as requested. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

Owner(s): William Traynor, Map 30 Lot 11-208 / 7 South Shore Road

Mr. Zarnowski said a waiv= er was being requested to Section 295-15, minimum land areas.

Mr. Gleason questioned if= a waiver was being requested from the Health Officer’s certification. M= r. Zarnowski said the requested waiver was only for the acreage requirement. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said with this type of conversio= n, the system had to be built versus on an expansion where it wouldn’t have = to be built.

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates, and the applicant Mr. William Traynor came forward to discuss t= he Article K waiver request. Mr. Aspinwall said the applicant had owned the property since the mid-1990’s. In 2006 the= owner wanted to construct an addition. At that time a septic design was prepared.&nb= sp; The leach field is located at the southerly edge of the property +12= 5ft. from Little Island Pond. All requirements of the Town/State have been met; copies of approvals were incl= uded in the application packet along with a copy of the as-built septic plan. Mr. Aspinwall stated that the addi= tion was built (in late 2006) slightly smaller than it appeared on the plan. Because there was additional construction/expansion on a pre-existing non-conforming lot, the owner acqu= ired a variance (in November 2006) and the building was constructed. He said the addition was fully ins= ulated and had modern windows and would meet the current energy and building code. The applicant was reque= sting to convert the building to year-round use.= Mr. Aspinwall said it physically met all the conditions of a year-ro= und system. He commented that the= property wasn’t changed in 2006 and was currently listed as a seasonal propert= y in the Assessor’s records. He said they received the variance, but hadn’t gone through the addition= al steps to get the conversion at the Town level. He said at this point the building= was entirely constructed; the only changes would be some new windows and insula= tion (in the walls), and spray insulation in the floor. Mr. Aspinwall stated that the 100-= year flood was noted on the plan; the building was entirely outside of that area= . A number of photographs of the pro= perty were included in the application package.&= nbsp; There will be no earth work construction; there’s no implicati= on or need of permits relative to the shore land. Mr. Aspinwall said the lot was set= up in the early 1900’s and contained a little over a third of an acre. He said the key point was that the septic was only a few years old and in good condition.

Mr. Gleason saw that the = plan indicated there was an existing septic system on the premises. Mr. Aspinwall said the system was = in existence since 2006; the addition and septic system was new from 2006. The well was in existence for some= years prior. The Board reviewed the= plan and clarified the location of the tank that would be used.

Mr. McDevitt asked the ap= plicant if the request was for an ‘after-the-fact’ approval. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes. Mr. Zarnowski said the applicant h= ad put the addition on and constructed a new septic system in 2006; the old septic system was abandoned at that time. <= /span>He said the applicant was now requesting a conversion from seasonal to year-ro= und and to do so they had to comply with the clause; currently they didn’t comply with the lot area.

Mr. Haverty questioned if= the applicant complied in 2006, based on the fact that it was only a seasonal dwelling. Mr. Zarnowski answe= red yes. Now that the applicant w= as looking to have a year-round dwelling they needed a waiver to lot area.

Mr. Lynde asked if the ap= plicant had previously come before the Board for an Article K waiver. Mr. Zarnowski answered no. It didn’t need a waiver to A= rticle K. Mr. Zarnowski reviewed the sections the applicant was asking to waive; the only thing the applicant didn’t meet was the lot area under 295-15 a & c. Mr. Lynde questioned if the applic= ant needed a waiver to Section 295-17. M= r. Zarnowski answered no.

MOTION:

(Lynde/Viger) To waive the requir= ements of Section 295-15, a and Section 295-15,c.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Gleason/Viger) To adjourn the Bo= ard of Health meeting.

VOTE:

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

The Board of Selectmen me= eting reconvened.

OTHER BUSINESS

Public Hearing Reminder:

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 6:45pm – 2^nd of t= wo hearings regarding a Proposal to Purchase Property of approximately 14 acre= s on Hinds Lane, located at Tax Map 20 Lots 2-113-1 and 2-113-3

&nb= sp;

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 = at 7:15pm – Hearing= to receive public comment on Petition Warrant Article “Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 40:14-b to delegate the determination of the default budget to the municipal budget committee which= has been adopted under RSA 32:14?”

Final 2012 Warrant Article Review

The Selectmen reviewed the Warrant Articles that would be brought forward to the 2012 Town Meeting.

Mr. Lynde discussed the F= und Balance and provided the following explanation. He said each year when the Selectm= en put the budget together they came up with an estimate of expenditures and revenue. The expenditures are presented at Town Meeting in the early part of the year, which was put toge= ther before the year that they would spend the money in. The Selectmen also made an estimat= e of revenue money the Town would receive during the year; the number was adjust= ed when the tax rate was set based on the actual revenues. If everything is done correctly, w= hen the year closes there would be money left over. The budget will not have been over expended and the revenues will not have been over estimated. The difference between the excess revenues and the money left over from the budget is added to the General Fu= nd Balance (an unreserved fund because there is no designation). Over the years Pelham has tried to= live by the guidelines of the Department of Revenue Administration (‘DRA&#= 8217;)that says there should be an unreserved fund balance of a minimum of 5% of how m= uch was budgeted for the year (both Town and School) and no more than 17%. The Town has maintained this and o= ver the years was able to offset tax increases and kept in mind to keep a reserve. The reason the DRA recommends a fund balance is because of their experience with other towns t= hat had not done so. The way New Hampshire la= w reads is if an emergency arises, and the budget has to be over expended, if DRA c= an grant a town to do so the fund balance can sometimes be used to offset the amount. Another reason to use= a fund balance is in the event a town is sued and an amount needs to be spent. If there isn’t e= nough money in a fund balance and an emergency arises, the town would have to rai= se taxes. In this case a judge w= ould need to approve a Special Town Meeting and a second tax bill would have to = go out to raise taxes to pay for the amount needed. Pelham has worked on the principle= that they never wanted to get into that situation so it has maintained a fairly healthy fund balance. The fund balance can not only be used to offset taxes, but to also offset another co= st to the Town, such as a warrant article.&nb= sp; The Town has done so prior to now; and in fact had done so last Town Meeting at which there were two warrant articles thought to be important but didn’t want them to be added to the tax rate. The fund balance was used to add $100,000 to the compensated absence fund and the other article was to addre= ss the safety concern at the Muldoon Park egress ($130,0= 00). For several years the Town has tri= ed to get approval of a new fire station. Mr. Lynde summarized what had occurred with the previous votes regar= ding a new fire station and believed at this time most of the people recognize t= he need for the fire station. The Selectmen recognize the added costs to the Town if they don̵= 7;t get a new station built before the round abouts go in. It was noted that the round abouts= would go in regardless of what the Town did with the fire station, however the ro= und abouts would have a significant impact to the existing fire station because= the roadway would be a short distance from the front doors and there would be a= one foot drop from the floor of the existing station to the road. The Selectmen recognize the diffic= ulty in getting a 60% vote (in a Senate Bill 2 town). The Selectmen think a majority of = people in Town support the new fire station and proposed to fund it in a single year. To minimize the tax imp= act the Selectmen were proposing to take a significant amount of the cost ($2.1 million) out of the unreserved fund balance. The remaining amount would be take= n from fire impact fees and have $1.376 million raised through Town appropriation; fire impact fees would also be used. Even using $2.1 million from the fund balance, a fair amount of money would remain and believed to be replenished by the end of the year. In summary, the Selectmen felt it = was important to move forward and minimize the impact on tax payers. There would be no added costs for = bond counsel, legal fees and interest costs.&nb= sp; There would be a tax impact this coming year and not be there the following year. If the fire s= tation was not built, somewhere down the line the Town would have to pay a signifi= cant amount of money to make due with the existing fire station until a new fire station was built. It was reiterated that the front door to the existing station would not be able to= be used once the round abouts go in. The Selectmen have worked to determine the best way to move forward and felt using the proposed approach was the best = way to proceed.

Mr. Gleason said the Town= ’s departments should be complimented for their diligence in holding the budgets. He said it was anticipated at the = end of 2011, when the Town revenues and expenditures are measured there would be m= oney available to increase the fund balance back up. In his experience, the Town had al= ways held a minimum of approximately $1.3 million. Mr. Gleason commented if the fire station didn’t pass this year, a good portion of the money in the fund balance would be used in doing modifications to the existing fire station.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> In talking to the Department of Transportation, the septic system will have to be moved, a better driveway = will need to be constructed for access, and structures will be needed to house t= he ambulances. Mr. Gleason stated there were fourteen warrant articles and there were very few that would rai= se taxes. He commented that the = fire station was the last capital requirement the Town had in the foreseeable future.

The Selectmen reviewed the remaining Warrant Articles. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Town Meeting Reminder:

1^st Session of Town Meeting (Town Deliberative Session), Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 7pm to be located= at Sherburne Hall

Town Meeting (voting), Tuesday, March= 13, 2012 from 7am to 8pm at the Pelham High School

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR // SELECTMEN REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos noted that the= re would be daycare at Town Meeting polling. Also, he said he would work with Chairman and any other Selectmen regarding the voter guide.

Mr. Haverty said a websit= e detailing the fire station project was currently under construction. It was expected to have the websit= e up and running prior to the Deliberative Session. A brochure is also being construct= ed to be mailed. Both of these item= s are not being funded by tax dollars.

Mr. Viger, Mr. Lynde and = Mr. McDevitt had no reports.

Mr. Gleason reported that= Pelham lost the request/petition to have redistricting include the Town as needing local representation. There w= as a bill going forth to the Senate to put Pelham with Hudson and Litchfield. He stated he drafted a letter to t= he Governor asking that he veto the legislation. The Board had no objection to Mr. Gleason sending a letter to the Governor.&= nbsp; Mr. Gleason said as part of being an NRPC Commissioner, he had been assigned to the broadband stakeholder group there is a funded federal initiative. Broadband is being reviewed for the entire state; the intent of the federal initiative is to c= heck broadband in the entire country. Under the federal mandate there is a requirement to check districts by census blo= cks; there will be a data accumulation process that has to take place. NRPC is asking for volunteers to participate and help out; Mr. Gleason said this may be an opportunity for groups such as the Boy Scouts, snowmobile clubs etc. to be able to use and = to borrow that equipment in support of their own activities. He said anyone interested sho= uld contact him and in turn he will put them in contact with NRPC.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

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

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Gleason-Ye= s; Mr. Viger-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Robert Haverty-Yes;

Mr. Lynde-Yes<= /p>

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 9:20 pm.

The Board return= ed to public session at approximately 9:30pm.

MOTION:

(Haverty/Viger) To seal the minut= es of the non-public session indefinitely.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Haverty/Viger) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was = adjourned at approximately 9:30 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

BOARD OF SELECTMEN ACTION ITEMS

March 22, 2011=

<= ![if !supportLists]>· Mr. Gowan to advise Selectmen whether the CIP will be instituted; 8/9/11 – Mr. Gaydos believed they had a complete list of all the equipment in Town. Ms. Kelley will circula= te that list to the departments requesting they advise what condition it was i= n)(8/30 – ongoing – a list of all equipment, trucks etc. was done. Mr. Gaydos will have a meeting with Selectmen Viger to review a replacement schedule); 10/25/11 Mr. Gaydos and Mr. Viger will sharpen the f= ocus in the internal vehicle replacement plan (Planning Board to discuss at their n= ext meeting if they will move forward); 1/17/12 – Mr. Gaydos said a packet had been provided to the Budget Committee, Mr. McDevitt said the Planning B= oard had made an announcement seeking volunteers. He suggested including the CIP in = the list of elected/appointment positions that would be available in March.

March 29, 2011=

<= ![if !supportLists]>· Mr. Gaydos to put timeline together for Cast= le Hill Road (6/7/11 easement being completed that would allow the Crawfords to access their property)(7/5/11 – Mr. Gaydos stated the project was mov= ing forward, there were other issues to get out of the way prior to addressing = this)(8/2/11 Mr. Gaydos is working with Attorney Solomon and will have a timeline quickl= y)(8/9/11 – Mr. Gaydos continuing to work with Attorney Solomon- associated correspondence will be provided to the Selectmen)(8/30/11 – still in progress); 1/17/12 – still in court.

May 10, 2011=

·<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> = Mr. McDevitt researching appropriate signage= for Raymond Park (where parcels are located and what names were allowed per dee= ds) (6/7/11 Mr. McDev= itt said research was completed and would like to discuss with the Board after the meeting of 6/28/= 11)(7/5/11 – M= r. McDevitt said a discussion should be scheduled regarding the names at Raymond Park. Information is available to educate the Selectmen. A discussion will be scheduled for= July 19, 2011)(= 8/2/11 Mr. McDev= itt said the Board had received a draft of the naming requirements of the park, which ra= ised additional questions. The Sel= ectmen will schedule a discussion at a later time)(8/9/11 – there is a quest= ion whether there could be signs that stay up at Raymond Park – this is in the process of being addressed)(8//30/11 – agenda item scheduled) / 10/25/11 – research still being conducted and signs to be designed; 1/17/12 – ongoing project – an Eagle Scout project will possibl= y be brought forward to put up kiosk.

May 24,= 2011

· Mr. Gaydos to contact the Congregational Church to find out how long they would allow the Town to use their property (7/5/11 – Mr. Gaydos said he would continue to = follow up. They previously had an agreement and didn’t believe that would change.)(8/2/11 Mr. Gaydos said he owes= Mr. Currier some materials)(8/9/11 – Mr. Gaydos is pulling together the plans from several years ago of = what was intended to be built in the event they were to build something behind t= he fire station – information to be provided to Mr. Currier)(8/30/11 –= Mr. Gaydos still pursuing with Mr. Currier) / 10/25/11 – Mr. Gaydos speaking to = Mr. Currier who is looking for drawings done approximately 6 years ago; 1/17/12 – Mr. Gaydos is working with Mr. Currier regarding the procedure to m= ove ahead if the fire station doesn’t pass.

July = 5, 2011

· Mr. Gaydos to request from Comcast something in writing indicating there will b= e no additional charge for moving cable to new fire station location (8/2/11 Mr. Gaydos said there were several issues he would deal with all at once when Comcast returned the signed contract)(8/30/11 – contracts returned – Town will approach Comcast with two required follow up letters of agreement) / 10/25/11- Mr. Gaydos to ask Mr. Greenwood to follow up; 1/17/12 follow up needed for written agreement.

Augus= t 2, 2011

· Ob= tain status regarding Young’s Crossing and the flashing sign on Route 38/Gage Hill Road/Ledge Road intersection and from Police Chief. (8/9/11 Mr. Gaydos had a discussion with Police Chief= Roark regarding the flashing light and there may be less expensive alternatives.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The Chief has requested a meeting = with the DOT district for Pelham)(8/30/11 – correspondence received from State – Mr. Gaydos to work with Police Chief Roark to compile accident statistics) / 10/25/11 – Mr. Gaydos said Chief Roark was heading this up – the same type of study = is being done at the Sherburne Road intersection.; 1/17/12 – still worki= ng with intersection (with state) in conjunction with Sherburne Road.

Augus= t 16, 2011

· Mr. Gaydos to research if there is legislation pertaining to dam water releases= for a future agenda item (8/30/11 –Mr. Gaydos working on response regarding dam water releases and hope= d it would also address the flood ordinance Mr. Gowan was working on)/ 10/25/11 – Mr. Gaydos said there was wording, but it didn’t have suffici= ent ‘teeth’ – an agenda item will be scheduled for Selectmen discussion; 1/17/12 – at a standstill between what the state is willi= ng to do and what the Town would like them to do. Mr. Gaydos felt the flood study wo= uld aid in an outcome. =

September 27, 2011

· Mr. Gaydos to create policy for acquiring property due to non-payment of taxes. 1/17/12 an agenda item will be scheduled for the pol= icy adoption.