|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenApril 10, 2006
|
Present: Chairman Dr. James Starke, Selectmen George Infanti, Thomas Grella, Bruce Bowler, Jay Dinkel and Reed Panasiti. Also present: Deputy Health Officer Katherine Lockwood, Planning Director Charlie Tiedemann and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Dr. Starke called the hearing to order at 6:08 p.m., introduced Mrs. Lockwood as their new Deputy Health Officer and indicated that she came with great credentials.
Conversion to Year-Round Use
The Board was told, by Dr. Starke, that the lot already has a system, was brand new and the owners wanted the home to be converted to year-round use. There were universal problems at Baboosic Lake - the lots were small, ground porous, the lot size 2,614 s.f. ( 1/10 of an acre), the new system reduces the amount of nitrates by 90%, but being that the lot is so small, the quantity of nitrates were still quite high. The Board should warn the owners that with a well as close as it was would not produce quality water and they should use bottled water. Dr. Starke felt that if these dwellings were to be used year-round, there should be some way of monitoring their use. He suggested they be licensed to use this type of system on these small lots and the license be renewed every five years with the party presenting a contract that they have their system monitored.
Mr. Dinkel summarized Dr. Starke’s recommendation that they have a contract renewable every five years that shows evidence that there is a contract to monitor the system. Also that the well should be tested regularly and it be better to use bottled water for drinking rather than from the well. He understood the factor of having a better septic system and the homes were designed for seasonal use – they have mitigating circumstances now than they had ten years ago, but there were five waivers associated with this application – even though someone puts in a new septic system and even though it was not designed this way originally. Dr. Starke agreed with him and indicated that sometimes they had a problem with a person putting in this type of system and wanting to live there year-round.
Mr. Bowler indicated he lived in the area and thought that anything someone does to improve their systems was a great improvement. He understood Mr. Dinkel’s concern regarding seasonal v. year-round. He also understood that living there was more economical and happened throughout the State. He thought it great that the applicant was willing to update the system. Relative to Mr. Grella’s question about the 1500 gallon septic tank, Dr. Starke advised this was more of a minimum often with two children and not unreasonable. Mr. Tiedemann added the system has a denitrification tank.
Mr. Infanti asked who made the determination of allowing a dwelling to go from seasonal to year-round? Mr. Tiedemann advised the Board of Health did it locally and the State makes the other determination. The system was a proposal. Mr. Dinkel agreed that this was an improvement, but they were looking for year-round use. Mr. Infanti commented that it was seasonal now with hardly any system, but by putting in this system there would be less septage into the lake than now. Mr. Grella commented that since the owner was present, he assumed he heard the restrictions recommended. Keith Allen indicated the restrictions he heard since arriving at the hearing. Dr. Starke spoke about his recommendation on licensing and reiterated the other restrictions. It was mentioned that Septitech came out once a year and paid to check the system.
Mr. Bowler asked Mr. Allen if he had tested the well water? He had not. Mr. Panasiti asked if this was going from a seasonal use to a 12 month use, was this the reason the system was going in? Dr. Starke advised if they did not have this type of system, they would not give him this year-round use. Mr. Tiedemann added that the State always approved the system and year-round use. The plans will be modified by whatever the Board of Health deems and the State will then give their approval.
Mr. Bowler moved that they approve this systems with the five waiver requests, that the well is tested and the results given to Charlie Tiedemann prior to the issuance of a permit, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: In response to Mr. Dinkel’s question, Mr. Tiedemann advised he has been asked in the past about testing wells and had a great concern about the distance of the system to the well and suggest that potential water issues be part of the motion. Mr. Bowler asked how this could be enforced? Mr. Tiedemann spoke about the liability and Mr. Bowler commented that this was why he had asked for the water to be tested prior to the approval. Dr. Starke suggested that they could add, along with the maintenance of the system, show evidence that the system had drinking water quality. Mr. Tiedemann added that in Amherst the C.O. was only for quality water. Mr. Dinkel suggested that the well be tested for nitrates once a year when he has the system inspected. There was a brief discussion on costs associated with this being approximately $70.00. Mr. Bowler added to the motion that the well has to be tested prior, the well needs to be tested once a year as well as the system and a contract inspection once a year by Septitech, second by Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel remarked that the other half of the application was the conversion from seasonal to year-round status associated with a change in Assessing data and the ability to live in the dwelling year-round without interruption. Mr. Dinkel moved in the affirmative to convert M/L 25-83 from seasonal to year-round, second by Mr. Bowler. Mr. Bowler amended the motion to approve as a year-round use limited to two-bedrooms, second by Mr. Infanti. Discussion: Mr. Dinkel yielded to Mr. Bowler’s comments and advised he applauded updating septic systems in seasonal properties as well. Vote: 4-1-1, Mr. Dinkel opposed, Dr. Starke abstained.
M/L 25-85 - 56 Broadway
Conversion to Year-Round Use
Mr. Tiedemann reported that the dwelling was being lived in, the system approved by Dr. Starke and Board of Health as a seasonal system and now the owner would like to convert it to year-round use. Dr. Starke emphasized that although there is a 90% reduction in nitrates because of the denitrification system the small size of the lot has about 3” per acre of sewage. The Board asked about the well, what system was there before and the status of Lot 84? Mr. Tiedemann advised the previous well was 18’ and it is now 20’, the previous system was a dry well and Lot 84 was another lot owned by the owners.
Mr. Bowler asked what would be the process of combining the two lots? Mr. Tiedemann explained that it was separated by a right-of-way not in use. For tax purposes it is recorded as two lots – it was a long narrow lot with an easement between them. They could be merged together through the Registry of Deeds with a simple declaration. Relative to the amount of taxes, he thought there may be a marginal change. Mr. Tiedemann also indicated there was no work done on the house and the system was still under construction with no operational approval. Mr. Bowler asked about the well being tested and owner David Symonds advised he had the well tested prior to the purchase of the house.
Mr. Bowler moved to approve the conversion of this lot to year-round on the condition that they combine Lot 84 with Lot 85 and present the well test results to the Town, second by Mr. Grella. After a brief discussion the motion was amended to include the same conditions as the previous application. Vote: 4-1-1, Mr. Dinkel opposed, Dr. Starke abstained.
Monitoring Tubes at Baboosic Lake Community Septic System
Mr. Bowler stepped down and advised he would be speaking from the audience. Dr. Starke indicated that since they have the system in he felt they should have put in monitoring tubes which were nothing more than 4” PVC pipes that are sunk in the ground to the depth of the drainage areas. The purpose of this is to make sure the system is not inefficient. Inefficiency would show pooling on the surface. This monitoring would make sure this was not happening and if it was, they could take immediate measures. Mr. Tiedemann asked if he was talking about the existing system? Dr. Starke indicated he was. Mr. Tiedemann explained they can examine the distribution boxes and did not believe they could see any flow now. Dr. Starke remarked that the cost would be less expensive.
In response to Mr. Infanti’s comment, Mr. Tiedemann explained that a monitoring system was dropped off between the first bid and the second one. Mr. Dinkel asked if this could be incorporated in Phase II? Mr. Tiedemann asked if he was measuring just the liquid or the effluent? Dr. Starke’s concern was the nitrates. Relative to costs, Mr. Tiedemann explained the next phase has not been designed yet and briefly spoke about his thoughts on upgrading. Mr. Dinkel remembered discussions with CLD in the past on design options. Mr. Tiedemann asked if they wanted included in the contract some things that the Town would pick up on the side? He spoke about the costs associated for the Town to do the monitoring. He agreed that they had some discrepancies to make sure who is going to pay for what.
Mr. Bowler, speaking as a resident, understood what they were trying to do and if there was a water increase they want people to cut back on using it, part of the process should be to make people purchase low flow appliances. Conventional washers use 40-50 gallons per load and you can get lower gallon per load washers. If the system has to be tested, he did not believe the taxpayers should have to pay for it. If they make this part of the next phase, they should probably have something for the first phase. They should think about it and he did not think they should reach a conclusion that evening.
Dr. Starke showed the Board pictures of the testing tubes and suggested that perhaps the folks on the system should take part in monitoring it. Mr. Dinkel felt they needed a formalized program in place and the Town is the appropriate source for doing this. Dr. Starke spoke about inspecting it during the spring and fall. Mr. Dinkel thought if they had help it was great, however, he didn’t see it as a big expense or burden. Mr. Tiedemann will work with Bruce Berry on this in the meantime.
Mr. Infanti moved to table the recommendation until such time as they talk with CLD and get some numbers in conjunction to monitoring in the design, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: Mr. Tiedemann would like to see what CLD proposes for the expansion of the system before they decide how to monitor it. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Bowler returned to the Board.
Design of Drain Fields on Sloping Sites Recommendation
Dr. Starke gave his views on designs of drain fields on hilly areas where serial drain fields were an accepted method, but felt there were serious design flaws. He proposed to leave it to the designer to use one of three choices: (1) Pressure dosing; (2) Single distribution box where each drain field trench would be connected to a D box with its own supply pipe and (3) Multiple distribution boxes using several D boxes. The effluent from the tank would end at the first D box and 1/3 would be diverted to each trench. Mr. Tiedemann’s suggestion whether the design was for sloping ground or flat ground would be to have all parallel systems. He had given each member an article on “Design Problem: Serial Drainfields”. The Board debated the issue as to allow three options or only allow option number two. Mr. Infanti moved that they leave it to the designer of his or her choice of one, two or three, second by Mr. Dinkel. V ote: 4 in favor Mr. Bowler opposed.
Mr. Dinkel asked to revisit the discussion and spoke about a Sub-Committee who had reviewed the regulations. He wondered if this was something that the Committee or one like it should review. He personally was not an engineer or installer and did not know the answers or where to go. Mr. Tiedemann advised this was a relatively minor point and did not believe they should reformulate the Committee.
West Nile Virus
Dr. Starke advised West Nile Virus was in Amherst with two crows tested positive. He would encourage people to report dead crows to the Police Department who would put them in an ice box and notify the State. There is also the problem of equine encephalitis, however, not in this area but nearer the coast and something that had been around for many years. He believed three years ago he asked the Board to have someone licensed. Mr. Bowler advised he thought they had someone at DPW. Dr. Starke remarked that in the past, he suggested that if there was a problem with someone not empting tires of water in a commercial area, had been warned by the Health Officer and had not taken steps to correct it, there should be penalties. The Town has done a good job at the dump in protecting the tires there.
Mr. Dinkel asked if Dr. Starke was looking for a reaffirmation regarding the role of the Police? Mr. Tiedemann said it was his understanding with West Nile Virus that once it was confirmed in Amherst, they don’t want to have any further birds being sent to the State. Dr. Starke indicated the State wants the Police to collect them, but he didn’t know how they want to dispose of them. Mr. Dinkel thought that what they needed to determine is what they need to do with the birds – if you see a dead bird, do you call the Police? Dr. Starke mentioned that he also wanted to be contacted. Mr. Bowler explained they would talk to Gary MacGuire about the issue.
Dr. Starke said they should get together again and talk about the Avian Flu.
Mr. Bowler moved to adjourn the Board of Health at 7:13p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
The Board took a brief recess at this time.
Selectmen’s Regular Meeting
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m.
Citizens’ Forum
There were no concerns or questions from the audience.
Boards & Commissions Interviews
Tom Wilkins – Conservation: Mr. Wilkins told the Board he had been a regular member for 10-12 years, but family and business commitments interfered with his attending meetings regularly and he was put on as an alternate and felt he had been doing a good job in the past 3 years. He tries to help out in land aspect matters. Relative to being a full member or alternate, he did not feel he was participating the way a full member should and would not mind remaining an alternate.
Gordon Leedy – Planning Board: Mr. Leedy told the Board he believed this was his seventh year on the Board, he had started off as an alternate and believed he was the second longest member. He was a landscape architect and certified planner and he is interested in trying to give whatever expertise he can back to the Town. One of the most important roles is to maintain a balance between community rights and the property owner’s rights. He spoke about land in Amherst and Southern NH becoming most valuable, development more difficult and the need to stay ahead of the game. The voters and the Selectmen approved funding for a Master Plan effort that was very important for Amherst’s future and the shared vision. Relative to defining the relationship between the Planning Board and Conservation Commission, he explained they don’t have a formal interchange, but there is a representative from the Commission at most of their meetings and weighs in on issues that Conservation feels important. The Planning Board needs Conservation input some times as it relates to water quality management and wetlands. Could the relationship be better – it probably could and he would be open to discussing a more formal interchange between the two Boards.
Mr. Bowler indicated that the present Chairman of the Planning Board recommended his reappointment and that he become the new Chairman. He asked if he would be against appointing someone to attend Conservation meetings? Mr. Leedy said he would not be opposed to it – they have representation on the Heritage Commission and HDC.
Cary Simmons – Planning Board: Mr. Simmons indicated he had trained as an architect, but began as an environmentalist and have been doing both ever since. He spoke of his past services on both a Planning Board and Conservation Commission in Massachusetts, but has not done any public service in the past 12 years. He liked the regulatory side of a Planning Board and spoke of his interest in updating the Master Plan. He also has written a great deal of zoning laws that have been tested. If there was a vacancy in the Planning Board he did not believe he would like to be an alternate because it was a big time commitment. He did not have an agenda and if they would quiz him on Amherst Zoning, he would fail it miserably. In the mid 1990’s he served as a consultant to the Bedford Planning Board. He knew there were potential ethics nightmares and he does not do any planning work in Amherst, but does planning work throughout New Hampshire.
Sally Wilkins – Planning Board: Before talking to Mrs. Wilkins, the Board talked to her about the number of full and alternate members. Mrs. Wilkins felt being on the Board was both rewarding and frustrating. She was the longest member on the Board and when she came on she had several passions which she mentioned. There was still work to be done, but she did not want to remain chairman because of home issues and the need to sometimes come in late to a meeting.
Gary Cole – Planning Board, Conservation or Road Commission: Mr. Cole told the Board he moved to Amherst in 2004 after a 26 ½ year career in the Air Force retiring as a Colonel and has a degree in biology. They moved 14 times and had never been in one place long enough to get involved in the community. Last March was the first time in his life he voted in his hometown. He saw the notice in the paper and was unsure if the Road Commission was his area of expertise, but wanted to offer his services and get involved in the community. He held command positions and led men to war and survived with all his men intact. He knew of the time commitment before he sent in the email indicating his interest. Mr. Infanti thought his biology background would be an asset to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Cole indicated if they had a slot somewhere, use him where they can.
Andrew Pataky – Planning Board: Mr. Pataky was seeking a full membership. He told the Board he was a member from 1993-1998 and had to step down due to work commitments. Looking back on his record, they dealt with Wal-Mart and the telecommunications issue and felt the Board needed to have someone with common sense. He has served in the past in the Fire Department, Color Guard, Conservation, NRPC and the Recreation Commission and wants to serve again. He spoke about doing his homework, looking up rules and regulations when on the Planning Board and thought he was an asset to them.
Linda Kaiser – Planning Board & Conservation: Mrs. Kaiser told the Selectmen she had applied to be appointed to the Planning Board last year and was asked to serve instead on the Conservation Commission. Ten years ago when she first served on the Planning Board, that Board always asked first if there was any information from Conservation. They were not placing enough value on the fact that 50 years from now they will double the population. She spoke about where they were not placing values, spoke about PRD’s and diversity. The Planning Board she knew ten years ago and the one now were very different. She believed Conservation should be represented on the Planning Board. She spoke about the importance of water issues and resources. She believed the Board was out of balance and there was way too much cordiality. She talked about bio-planning, environmental issues, Lowe’s development, aesthetics and out-of-town developers. She would not mind being an alternate as she had been both. In answer to the question what instructions or information would she make available to a new person coming on board, she replied she would give them a copy of the Master and Traffic Plans (even though they are old), copy of the NH Land Use Regulations, copy of the State Conservation Commission Manual and all Conservation members should be given a copy of the Right-to-Know Law. Conservation does not have a copy of the Zoning Regulations. She thought there should be some formal orientation of Planning Board members on the duties and under what circumstances they can talk to Counsel. Explain the role of the NRPC and go through a subdivision checklist because there are some rules about them. She talked about Stormwater II not being in the Zoning Ordinance document.
Meredith Borgioli – Conservation: Mrs. Borgioli has been a citizen for three years and is in her first home. It is because she owns her own home and land that she came to care about the land and water around her. She came from a family who always had been involved in community activities and politics. She loves Amherst and thought it a beautiful town and she would like to make it more beautiful. She began educating herself by going online and reading all the minutes and was impressed about their ideas and what they want to accomplish. What made her passionate about Conservation, was the passing of the open space bond. She has also familiarized herself with the trail system and would welcome working on them. If appointed, her goals would be to get people to understand the importance of wetlands and water quality.
Shannon Galinson – Historic District Commission: Mrs. Galinson moved to Amherst almost two years ago and owns two houses in the Village and preservation was near and dear to her. Formerly from New England she has a love affair with old houses. She is also interested in getting others interested in them too. She has a friendly rapport with Helen Rowe and Beth Davis and has attended the HDC’s last meeting. In response to a question raised, she said she only visited the Commission one time and could not comment on their process or recommend any change. She was not familiar to date with the code and requirements so she would reserve answering. She told the Board that she would “humbly” request that she be an alternate because it would be best for her.
Anne Krantz – Conservation: Mrs. Krantz told the Board she had been on the Commission six years as a regular member and three as an alternate. She would like to remain a regular member if this was the Selectmen’s wish. She had been taking the minuets and did not mind doing this – it was an important job and a contribution she would like to continue to make. In answer to a question raised, Mrs. Krantz thought one of the most significant things she did was work on the wetlands study several years ago and probably unique in New Hampshire that a Town did such a complete job. It was done in 1999 and the entire concept has held up.
Mr. Grella spoke about a number of people who had talked to him about trees and how many were slowly decaying, some taken down and not replaced. He asked her about being on a Tree Committee again. Mrs. Krantz remarked that back when John Starkey was the Director of DPW the Tree Committee got folded into that Department. With the support of the Selectmen it could easily be resurrected. People like to give money for trees. In the past when they worked together with DPW, they got many trees planted in the Village. She agreed and was willing to serve.
Nancy Spears – Heritage Commission: Mrs. Spears has been a resident of Amherst for 30 years and a teacher for 23 and she was looking to give back to the community. She attended two meetings and found the Commission important and thought it would be a good fit for her. She has always been interested in historic preservation and it was hard living in Amherst without having that feeling. She would be interested in trying to have the overhead wires placed underground in the Village as well as the 250th Anniversary Celebration. She had no particular goal but would do whatever her time could be best used on. Chairman Will Ludt commented that in the short amount of time he has seen Nancy in action, she would be a great asset. She asked good questions about the Farley Barn and he looked forward to hopefully having her on the Heritage Commission.
Mr. Dinkel asked about Andy Ouellette’s membership. Mr. Ludt had not heard from him at all and will contact him to see if there is some interest.
At 8:45 p.m. the Board took a brief recess and resumed their meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Minutes
Mr. Dinkel moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 2006, second by Mr. Grella amended as follows:
Line 14 – Replace “Paving” with “Surface”; Strike “many of which ….Block Grant this summer” and replace with “hopefully some paving will be done this summer under the Highway Block Grant.”; Line 33 – Replace “that” with “then”; Line 62 – Strike “Chairman of Ways & Means”; Line 85 – Change “Todd Richard” to “Richard Todd”; Line 105 – Replace “what” with “which”; Line 115 – Change “Mr. Infanti” to “Mr. Bowler”; Line 164 – Replace “*” with “&”. Vote: Unanimous.
Carolyn Quinn – Heritage Commission: Mrs. Quinn told the Board how she enjoys working on Town efforts and found it very satisfying and would like to continue. She originally was on the Town Hall Space Needs Committee, the HDC and the Heritage Commission and enjoys working in efforts that benefit the Town. One of the things she felt most proud of was the Brick School Celebration and felt really connected with it every day. She was deeply involved in the 250th Anniversary Celebration and have some things she would like to talk to the Selectmen about within a few weeks. One thing she, Dotsie and Will will have to come up with is a great gift to the Town. This was a really important event and want to make it very special and include everybody in Town and Sharon as well. Will Ludt indicated that Carolyn was too modest and was instrumental in helping get $30,000 for the Brick School Celebration in 2004. The 250th Anniversary was only four years away in 2010. She was also instrumental in raising some funds for curbing in front of Town Hall as well as being interested in improving the exterior appearance on the Brick School. The Chairman fully endorsed Mrs. Quinn’s reappointment in the Heritage Commission.
Dotsie Bohan – Heritage Commission: Relative to being a full member on the Commission, Mrs. Bohan indicated this had not been discussed and she was more comfortable in being an alternate. She has been on the Commission since it started. She enjoys doing it, has a good time, thought she brought a little bit of enthusiasm and likes to see things finished that were started. As a group, they certainly had done things to be proud of. Sometimes young people need to be getting on these Boards and she would like to stick with it. Will Ludt thought Dotsie was also too modest – she worked with the Amherst School Board with roof repairs and has gone with him to several of their meetings and worked with them on the swing sets and benches. She is also part of the 250th Anniversary Celebration, assisted in the preservation of the corn crib and brings in great energy. One of the key things is to finish the Town-wide Historic Resources and Dotsie will be involved in this and he fully endorsed her reappointment.
Jim Bowen – Conservation: Mr. Bowler reported that Mr. Bowen was presently the senior alternate and he would like to become a full member. Mr. Bowen told the Board he had been an alternate for the past three years and his role on the ACC changed somewhat – his main job is the representative to the Planning Board and he still has a great deal to learn. He spoke briefly of his connection with PMEC. He commented that the members of the Commission have increased and people are quite passionate about this and he believed they will be getting things accomplished. In response to the question asked about what message, as the Planning Board rep, did he have to give, Mr. Bowen thought the Planning Board was extremely unbalanced and pro-development. He had serious questions about conflicts of interest and he hoped the Selectmen would make some changes. He felt the Board was trying to shorten the build out. In response to the question if he had a single goal during his next term, what would it be? Mr. Bowen’s response was that he didn’t have single goals unfortunately. Based on his prime job as representative to the Planning Board, he would like to be more knowledgeable on the Ordinance and also be a rep to the Master Plan. He would like to see the Ordinance written in a more orderly manner.
Rolf Biggers – Historic District Commission: Mr. Biggers told the Board he had been before them several times. He enjoys the process of the HDC role and the fact that there aren’t any clearly defined rules and regulations. Everything is different on every project and everything has unique situations. He has enjoyed it for the last several years and would like to continue. In response to the question on how he balanced his professional expertise with the citizen body without conflict, Mr. Biggers remarked that one thing about the HDC was that longevity was a huge asset and spoke about architectural knowledge. Another thing was the legal perspective that Beth Davis is very involved in. Another is having one of the “old guard” on the Commission – someone who was born and raised in Amherst such as Charlie Duval. There was a tendency to micromanage and he would like to see fewer rules and use them consistently rather than having more rules. You can drive through the Village and see “for sale” signs and know that these will be on their agenda within the next few months. Mr. Dinkel mentioned that there were two people in the Town who were most instrumental in getting the Town Hall restored and he was one, as well as Marilyn Peterman and he thanked Mr. Biggers personally. Mr. Biggers spoke about space and the people the Town has appointed. This was a living, breathing Village and it was not Williamsburg. He briefly talked about new development and what is to come in the near future. The Town Hall was the symbol and life blood of the Town. He would like to serve at least one more term.
Marilyn Peterman – Planning Board: Mrs. Peterman told the Board she started her career in 1978 on the Planning Board as an alternate. She would like to apply for an alternate’s position unless there was a full member opening. This was an excellent way to learn about the Town. She has seen 101A when there was nothing there to what it is today. The Planning Board manages a lot of what goes down in the Town insofar as protection. She briefly spoke about the ordinance she helped write and indicated she would like to stay in the process and look again to help developing a Master Plan. She commented that it is a balancing act trying to take into consideration the applicant, the abutters and interested parties who come to talk about certain developments. She spoke about several people who were instrumental on the Planning Board and contributed much to the Town.
It was mentioned to her, that there were allegations that night that it is time for a change and that when a developer comes in it has been “pretty much rubber stamped” – she was asked to comment. Mrs. Peterman remarked this was farthest from the truth – in talking to planners and applicants who have been before the Amherst Planning Board v. other Planning Boards they deal with, they say this is the most knowledgeable and fair Boards in the State. She advised the Board cannot waive, but they can interpret. She talked about a proposed gas station years ago before they had the underground storage tank regulations and after 2 ½ years they walked away. Wal-Mart was encouraged and they worked with them and not rubber stamped. Relative to conflict of interest, she had never seen a Board member not step down if the Board thought they should. A banker, an attorney, a developer, etc. can all have conflicts of interest and goes back to when she started in 1978. A concern was expressed about the industrial park and the question asked, why hasn’t it been developed? Mrs. Peterman explained one person owns the land and is part of the problem. The land is zoned industrial, light industrial and commercial. She spoke to the owner and was told they will not see the land developed in their lifetime nor their children’s lifetime. It is in current use and a bonus to the landowner. They tried to put in sewers, but were turned down by Milford, Nashua and the State – at that time the cost was $12 million. There was one owner and a few minor players and it was not an easy thing to do. Amherst is not near the major highways and the more the industrial park is developed, the worst the traffic on Route 101A will become. It is a tough task and they all should encourage this development.
Relative to the Water District, Mr. Bowler knew how involved she has been from its inception as it pertained to Pennichuck Water and Nashua and she requested to stay and be the Town’s rep. He opened this up for discussion by the Board. Mr. Infanti’s feeling was that Mrs. Peterman represented them well and he knew that she will notify them on a continual basis and he had no problem with her continuing. Both Mr. Dinkel and Mr. Grella agreed. Mrs. Peterman said she was confident that Nashua will succeed and she hoped they would. Mr. Panasiti asked how this affects them. Mrs. Peterman explained Amherst needed to watch out for its water source, look out for the recharge areas and a company that looks out for the communities that receive this water. As a former Selectman and a citizen, it behooves the Selectmen to protect the citizens of the Town to see that Pennichuck Water belongs to an entity that will watch out for all the citizens. Amherst is one of the core members of the system. Mr. Panasiti thought that at some time it would be good to get this on the agenda. Mrs. Peterman indicated that before she left, it had been suggested to have someone come in to talk about the process of where they were. Mr. Dinkel remarked this was something they should continually revisit because of the huge implication to our community. Mr. Grella moved to appoint Marilyn Peterman to the Water District, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous. Mr. Bowler asked if someone wanted to be an alternate. Mr. Dinkel said he would consider it.
Mr. Bowler indicated Mrs. Peterman had two more years on the NRPC. She said she felt very strongly about being a representative on a regional committee and it would tie in with the Planning Board. Mr. Bowler clarified that there were no stipulations that required a Selectman to serve – there were many other towns that didn’t.
Relative to the NHMA, Mrs. Peterman indicated her liaison was because she was on the Policy Committee and would follow it as a citizen. She thought that one of the Board members should also do this on the Board level.
Cecelia Strong – Planning Board: Mrs. Strong told the Selectmen she has lived in Amherst for two years and wants to participate and volunteer in the community. She currently works at Gale Associates in Bedford and Community Systems in Nashua. She is a student at UNH taking civil technology with a focus on mapping and surveying. She would like to get on the Board and learn and put what she learned at school in practice. She was working on a Master Plan for a small airport. She would be interested in serving in whatever position they saw fit. Relative to time, everything she is currently involved in is part time. She moved here from Massachusetts and she likes the small town atmosphere. She knew towns need to grow and progress - the rules that are put forward need to be enforced, but people shouldn’t be hindered in the fine balance. The Board is not here to judge, but to follow the rules and make sure things are done fairly and appropriately.
Other Business
Mr. Infanti had several questions regarding the Cemetery – who supplies perpetual care, what is the Town’s commitment, what is the labor force, regarding community service and someone painting the Paupers’ Cemetery fence was there a liability. Mr. Bowler mentioned he had gone past Meadowview Cemetery the day before and the gates were still locked.
Relative to the Planning Board Meeting, Mr. Infanti indicated it was interesting and long and there was some progress made.
Mr. Infanti reported he had read an article in “The Broadcaster” regarding the Olson’s and the reason he brought it up was because more than one person mentioned it to him and in his opinion it was very one sided and made the governing body of the Town look bad. Mr. Dinkel commented they have been exposed to one sided reporting before and reflects only the reporter’s opinion. Mr. Infanti brought it up only because it was pointed out to him.
Mr. Grella reported he had met with DPW Director Bruce Berry on Friday and discussed his plan for this coming summer for road resurfacing. They also talked about several alternatives and he had suggested Mr. Berry give them a power point presentation. This will be put together and he will meet with the Selectmen soon.
Mr. Dinkel asked if the Board agreed to discuss on the 24th, the three committees they formed in the last several years – OSAC, CIC and CIP without terms and how they should proceed with these committees. There were several other committees that fell under this same scenario – PMEC and Recreation Commission. The CIC Committee have a public hearing on the 22nd. CIP will renew meeting in the late spring or early summer and OSAC has many things going on, but nothing to report.
Mr. Dinkel suggested they devote their goal setting perhaps for an entire meeting or a work session.
Mr. Panasiti reported he attended the Conservation meeting last evening and several things came up which seemed to be a disconnect between some planning issues and Conservation which Gary MacGuire will discuss with the Department Heads. Executive Sessions were again brought up and there seems to be some misconception on how it is warned. There was mention that the Board was going to bring in folks, and Town Counsel to talk about these issues. There was also a discussion on replacing maps, etc. on the walls and who should they see about putting both the maps and charts back in the Town Hall Meeting Room? Mrs. Frydlo indicated that Anne Krantz suggested that they use a LCD projector to project on the walls any maps they may need to rely on. Mr. Bowler asked Mr. Dinkel to formalize this with Mr. MacGuire, Mr. Berry and/or Rolf Biggers.
Mrs. Kaiser asked the status of imposing impact fees? Mr. Bowler advised the Selectmen have recommended the CIP Plan to the Planning Board – he did not believe the School had all their information. Mrs. Kaiser asked if they had the right to assess impact fees without the Schools? Mr. Dinkel advised they can do anything they wish but they had to be able to back it up without the real big numbers that come from the School’s side of the equation. Mrs. Kaiser’s said her question was more about the School Boards that were holding up their ability to assess impact fees, was one of the most important things they were missing and asked if she should talk to the School Board? Mr. Dinkel thought this was up to the School Boards, they have a representative on the CIP so that there has not been a lack of attempting to bring them in. They are currently doing ground and building renovation assessments and until this is done, it was hard to put the numbers in the CIP. Mr. Bowler indicated he had no problem in talking to ASB Chairman Dwight Brew on this. Souhegan High School Board Chairman who was present as a representative of the CIC Committee broadcasting the Selectmen’s meeting told them that he was appointed to the CIP this year and in talking to Addie Hutchison, Chairman of the CIP, this was to be done in the spring and early summer and he was committed to doing this. They needed to work with their Business Administrator on it. Mr. Bowler asked that he please talk to Mrs. Hutchison about the further process. Mr. Dinkel commented that he believed the Amherst School District was a bit different than the Souhegan School Board.
Mr. Bowler advised the next Selectmen’s meeting was April 24 with May 2nd being the Police Chief’s ceremony. He also announced that Mr. MacGuire wants to hold a training class to update Boards and Commissions Chairmen, Vice Chairmen and Secretaries on various RSA mandates pertaining to minutes, non-public sessions and associated policies the Town has implemented. He will check with Mr. MacGuire further on this training class.
Mr. Bowler suggested the Board meet with their State Representatives and Senator on May 9 for updates in the State legislature - Mrs. Frydlo to invite their attendance. The Board will also do a site walk at the Police Station at 6:30 p.m. to review a proposal from a cell tower company.
Mr. Infanti moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant