|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenMay 22, 2006
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Jay Dinkel, Thomas Grella and Reed Panasiti.
Non-Public Session
Upon a roll call vote the Selectmen entered non-public session at 6:02 p.m. under RSA 91-A:3 II (e) Litigation.
The Board exited non-public session at 6:40 p.m. and authorized DPW Director Bruce Berry to contact Skillings & Sons or another appropriate vendor to potentially hydrofrac a well, do a water flow test and jasmine seal at M/L 7-34. Property owner has agreed to pay for the hydrofracing and flow test – the Town to pay the difference. The Town possibly may authorize the use of a camera to determine the depth of the jasmine seal.
Board of Health
M/L 5-40, 5-46-1, 5-59, 5-60-1 Lyndeborough Road
Dr. James Starke called the hearing to order at 6:50 p.m. All Selectmen were present as well as Planning Director Charlie Tiedemann, Deputy Health Officer Mary Katherine Lockwood and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Dr. Starke explained that the development on North Street has a problem with high ground water and/or ledge. This was a preliminary hearing and the applicant was requesting the use of Septitech Systems rather than a regular system or a community system.
Tom Carr, Meridian Land Services told the Board that Tim Farris, landowner was also present. He spoke about the original plan being a PRD, but after preliminary testing soils, they did not have the slight to medium soils for a PRD development. Under affordable or elderly housing the soils would be suitable, but was not their plan. There are some ledge issues, however, of the 41 lots 21 have proven 4’ to ledge over natural soils. They want to ask the Board of Health to allow them to use, in the development process, the Septitech System or clean solution process. This was a significantly small footprint and they were asking for this because Mr. Farris does not want to go the affordable or elderly housing route and the market Mr. Farris wants to go for. This type of housing would call for approximately 100 units and not in the best interest of the Town. If the Board of Health and the Planning Board is acceptable they could go with shared systems and limit them to as few homes as possible. He told the Board that John Tenhave is interested and has some concerns with easements and tying people together is not a good selling point.
Mr. Carr spoke about the road and infrastructure costs. Mr. Infanti mentioned that 21 were acceptable now without waivers and they were looking not at a total development but only 30%. In answer to Mr. Bowler’s question, Mr. Carr advised they could not come up with the type of data he was looking for. Mr. Bowler asked how many more test pits did they have to dig? Mr. Carr indicated approximately 60-70 more. Mr. Bowler thought this discussion was premature. Mr. Carr said he did not want to waste anyone’s time and wondered if they could come up with a number that night, however, he was not sure how much input Dr. Starke had. Mr. Bowler felt he personally would have a hard time approving waivers. Mr. Carr advised that the average State guideline is 18” which is a fairly small amount of soil and did not expect the Board to approve any less than 24”. When he came before them, he would ask for approximately 30-36”, but he did not have enough data to give them. Would this Board accept anything less than what was required? Dr. Starke explained that in the past when he was on a committee it was determined that it should not be under 2’ and what the State requires was not necessarily legitimate. The only problem they would have is the hydraulic ability of these lots to absorb the amount of water and sewage to the systems. Another alternative was to have a large disposal field and Mr. Carr will be getting back to him on this. They had a disagreement on the amount of sewage per day converted to the amount of water and this type of system would have 6” of sewage per day. What is being proposed is a satisfactory system with some items the Board may require.
Mr. Bowler asked if they could require him to enlarge the beds? Mr. Tiedemann replied yes. Mr. Carr indicated that this would be a condition of the design the Board of Health would make on this project through the Planning Board and part of the record. Mr. Tiedemann was troubled by the shallowness to ledge and would reserve judgment after seeing further test pit results. He would like to see some deep soil to ledge and he had told this to Mr. Carr.
Dr. Starke did not think they could make any decisions, but thought they could give him some direction. Mr. Bowler agreed with Mr. Tiedemann because they were not getting any depth, but could have a potential community system on common land like at Baboosic Lake. He preferred to see the rest of the information. Dr. Starke mentioned that with additional information they could look at waivers associated with the Septitech System. He knew it was a safe system and used in many areas and personally had no objections to it. If there was any endanger to public health, he wouldn’t go along with it.
Cost of the system as well as annual testing was briefly discussed in answer to a question raised by Mr. Grella. Mr. Grella felt they needed justification for them to come back to the Town as it pertains to the septic system and testing water. Somehow they needed to be assured this was working. Dr. Starke remarked that this was a type of system approved by the EPA. Mr. Infanti found Dr. Starke to be very conservative and would go along with his recommendation for the depth of the system. He personally felt that a community system should be done to alleviate problems with neighbors. Mr. Dinkel commented that if they were looking for direction of the two choices, he was inclined to lean toward the Septitech one.
Mr. Carr summarized that he would go away from this meeting that the Board of Health will lean toward a specific depth and he will talk to Dr. Starke further. If they feel the Septitech System and easements are still an option and if they were asking too much, they can proceed towards this point. Mr. Dinkel indicated his thoughts were clear, if they had to make a call now, this land is not suitable the way it is. If they were going to continue working with soil depth, his inclination would be to go towards the Septitech System. Mr. Bowler had no problem with Septitech, but was concerned about Mr. Tiedemann’s not recommending the depth. Mr. Dinkel thought they may have to go lot by lot rather than giving approval for the entire development. Mr. Infanti thought if they knew the depth on each lot and came up with a depth they were comfortable with, it may not be a grueling process. Mr. Dinkel was fine with this.
Mr. Dinkel asked how many types of these systems do they have in Amherst of insufficient soil areas? Mr. Tiedemann remarked “not many, most are around the lake along with overlapping wells and septic
Systems”. In response to Mr. Bowler’s question, Mr. Tiedemann explained they would have to be talking about original soil, to be approved by the Board of Health, is 48”. Mr. Carr added it would be designed to the raised elevations where there are more and some less in some locations. Mr. Bowler thought they should start and end up with 48”. Dr. Starke commented they were talking about apples and oranges and stone systems vs. Septitech Systems were totally different. He recommended they delay any decisions until more information is received as to soil depths.
Mr. Infanti moved that this Board is willing to entertain the use of the Septitech System in this development with the added information that they will get the depth of the soil and the Board will make a decision at that point, second by Mr. Bowler. Discussion: Dr. Starke suggested that the motion should include that the Board may make some modifications, Board members agreed. Vote: Unanimous.
Regular Meeting
Chairman Bowler called the regular meeting to order at 7:24 p.m. Town Administrator Gary MacGuire arrived at approximately 7:35 p.m.
Citizen’s Forum
There were no comments or concerns from people in the audience.
Public Hearing
To Ascertain Community Needs for Cable Access Television
Mr. Dinkel moved to open the public hearing, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Bowler advised there were members of the CIC Committee present that would explain the purpose of the public hearing. Steve Coughlan gave a Power Point presentation (see attached). He explained that this public hearing was required under the Public Communications Act in anticipation of renewal of the Adelphia Communications Agreement which expires in July 2006. They had a version of this public hearing back on February 9, 2004. Being in negotiations with Adelphia, the Attorney recommended that they have a new ascertainment hearing. The franchise expires on July 5th and there is an agreement to extend it up to one more year in order to finish negotiations. Areas to be considered are: Television, Internet, Service, Future Features and Franchise Agreement.
The criteria under television – setting limits on channel signal outages; ability to select channels on an a la carte basis; basic tier channels should be assigned low channel numbers, thereby limiting cable boxes to view those channels; three PEG channels to be set aside for community use; one educational PEG channel to be made available for shared usage with Mont Vernon; one time PEG Capital Grant of $100,000; meeting rooms in town & school buildings can be PEG origination points; make available 174 channel system plus 3 PEG uplink channels; continue offering basic service with capped cost (even if law requiring it is changed); free service to all town and school buildings; analog television shall be supported by the cable system for the duration of the franchise.
The criteria under service – providing monthly written reports to the town containing: households served, number of broadband data subscribers, number of service calls received, number of service calls resolved, date, time and duration of video outages, same with broadband data outages, estimated revenues subject to franchise fee; provide a single, local customer service phone number; retain management presence in Southern NH; maintain a local business office in Hillsborough County or no further than the current Londonderry office; customer service reps to have access to current information on service outages; local service office with convenient hours both night and weekends; response to phone calls, appointment process and service calls cannot be less responsive than current law allows; call center must be aware of current outages; provider cannot cut wires on customer premises without permission; any outage of 24 hours or more shall trigger an automatic credit on broadcast or broadband service; any outage of 72 hours or more shall trigger an automatic credit for 1 month for broadcast or broadband service; service must be made available to all residences; free installation for first 200’ from network; automatically extend service to unserved residences when requested; ability to purchase COTS equipment instead of rental; no withdrawal of service from any location that is actively served during the term of the agreement.
The criteria for the Internet was quite extensive and related to limits on outages, reliable and available broadband service, email addresses remaining valid for term of the agreement, creating a unique email domain for use by town subscribers, entitle subscribers to 5 email addresses and 10 Mb of storage space, provide use of private iNet for the purpose of interconnecting school and town buildings at no cost, offering a capped-cost basic broadband service, free service to town and school buildings, to name a few.
The criteria for future features include a meeting between franchisee and representatives of the town no more than annually regarding the state of cable services nationally, regionally, current offerings, plans for deployment of new services or termination of existing ones; any enhanced services available to any franchise in New England must be provided to Amherst within 12 months.
Relative to the criteria for the franchise agreement - $100,000 performance bond be put in place for the duration of the agreement; term of agreement 3 years; agreement shall not survive a change in ownership; price increase be limited to occur not more than annually with 3 months notice to the town and limited to 10% or less without written justification; free basic and broadband service to town and school buildings; free web hosting capability to the Town; disputed escrowed franchise fees; annual evaluation meeting if requested by the Town.
Community Input – they are constrained by 47 USC 546 (a) (1) to two tasks: Identify Amherst’s future cable-related community needs and interests and review the performance of Adelphia Cable Communications under the current franchise terms. Mr. Coughlan advised that both he and former Town Administrator did an audit of Adelphia’s files and they completely comply with all the rules.
Mr. Bowler opened the public hearing to the audience for comments. Eric Nickerson remarked on what Comcast does relative to email and certain rights to it as well as free virus protection. He suggested that Mr. Coughlan may want to ask Adelphia to do the same. Tom Mortimer, 3 Roberts Road asked about exclusive rights and if the Committee had looked at the cable and broadcast services vs. other communities and what the Town’s subscribers were paying compared to other towns. CIC Chairman Doug McAllister explained this was a non-exclusive agreement. They would have to build out and own their own infrastructure. Mr. Coughlan added they had not done a formal study, but were comparable to other Adelphia towns and less expensive than Comcast. Relative to inflation, the franchising authority was not about to regulate costs – they can charge whatever they want because they are under the FCC.
Meredith Borgioli asked that if their house was 250’ and it would cost them $2000 for the additional 50’ were the rules different for cable and for Internet? Mr. Coughlan explained it was the same wire that television and Internet services goes over. They could place as a requirement, a longer distance and all of this was subject to negotiations. Their costs are usually estimates and their real costs are not inflated and are competitive. A brief discussion was held as to whether or not they should get into the agreement an additional 25’ and the approximate cost associated per foot. In answer to another question, Mr. Coughlan indicated DSL service is available and they have a map with four dots on it and it was not universal. Mr. Nickerson talked about rumors relating to fiber optic and asked if PEG channels would be available to Verizon? Mr. Coughlan explained they would have to do a franchise agreement with Verizon
Mr. Infanti remarked this was an incredible amount of work that had been gone into what the Committee has been doing and he acknowledged the Committee for the work it has done. He asked how much of this work that has been done is 25% or 50% already in the agreement? What portion of the list they had given the Board that night is not in the existing agreement? Mr. Coughlan indicated that the Town’s existing agreement was about 18 pages, other modern agreements tend to be 60-pages and that approximately 10% is in their current agreement. Mr. Infanti asked if they were not being unrealistic? Mr. Coughlan advised that everything else is in someone else’s agreement somewhere.
Mr. Grella asked whether new technology was covered in the agreement and/or language options? Mr. Coughlan explained that any enhancement was asked for and language options were not in there explicitly, but could require them to add it in. Mr. Dinkel asked if there was anyone present from the cable company since they were discussing their franchise agreement with the Town. He couldn’t imagine being in business, knowing there was a public hearing about their business and not being in attendance. Mr. Bowler advised that at their last public hearing someone was present. Mr. Bowler commented the Committee had done a great job and thanked them for the amount of time that they put in was outstanding. He indicated he read something in the newspaper about Verizon running some type of infrastructure in Merrimack. Mr. Coughlan explained they had reached out to Verizon for the past several years regarding competitive broadband options. They spoke extensively with them, but they won’t commit and change their plans daily based on current economic situations.
In answer to Mr. Bowler’s question, Mr. Coughlan indicated areas not being serviced were all Mack Hill Road to the new road, off Dodge Road, Twilight Farm Road with service not going to The Fells. He indicated he had a map that includes all the serviced areas.
Mr. Infanti moved to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel moved that the Board sign the Franchise Extension Agreement that extends their current agreement up to one year expiring no later than June 5, 2007, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous. Mr. Bowler advised the extension agreement had been reviewed by Counsel.
Appointments
Christian Hill Residents
Mr. Bowler announced that concerns by residents on Christian Hill regarding stripping of the road had been addressed by Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and they felt his explanation was fine and they withdrew further discussion.
250th Anniversary Celebration
Meeting with the Board was Heritage Commission members Carolyn Quinn and Bill Veillette. Mrs. Quinn advised that besides herself and Mr. Veillette, Will Ludt was also working with them to plan the 250th Anniversary Celebration. They have gotten a group together and hope to generate a great deal of enthusiasm across the Town. A project they would like to do is bury the wires in the Village. She and her husband measured the Village with CLD. At first they felt it was intimidating, but after reviewing it they felt this was something they could accomplish. They would like the support from the Town and Selectmen. They would do it in phases because the venture was $2.5 million dollars to do the entire project. She has spoken to various people and got a list from the Chamber in order to get the project moving forward. The Town Hall project will cost between $5-10,000 and the next step would be a bond issue for over 5-10 years. The historical context is that every time the Town has had an Anniversary, there has been some type of beautification or capital issue. It is a bit of tradition and a gift from the citizens to the Town on its birthday. The Committee is just asking the Board for their moral support and not tax dollars, but they may come forward in the future for this. Mrs. Quinn added that $2.5 million dollars sounded like a lot of money, but not much if they can get the momentum going.
Mr. Veillette explained because the poles would go away, the lighting would be cast differently and lower. Because the poles would be taken away, there would be a box for every home and could be hidden behind a bush. They would try to get an engineer appropriated for this type of costs. The case would be to have the moral support of the Selectmen if not more.
Mr. Panasiti commented that they say it was not a hard thing to raise this amount of money and asked about a warrant article for taxpayers. Mrs. Quinn thought this was something they would need to do and people had done this around the country. They would look towards this as their gift to the town and realistically they could work towards this over the next several years. Mr. Panasiti thought this would not be a difficult sale, but asked why only the Historic District? Mr. Veillette indicated that one thing they could do and should do, is to have Town Hall be the first phase and is the most public place. He then spoke about phasing it out to perhaps four phases if they were fortunate to receive funding. It didn’t have to stop if people want to bury wires in their part of Town. Mrs. Quinn remarked that if this was a successful program, there was no reason why this couldn’t continue and they have to think about the 250th Anniversary gift to the Town as a beginning to get them reasonably started. Mr. Veillette spoke about having the right people sitting around the table along with an engineer. He thought they could put together a sub-committee of people who have good judgment to refine the plan.
Mr. Panasiti had some questions on areas they picked out, but they could be addressed much later in the process. He thought this a good idea. Mr. Dinkel indicated he personally was on board and willing to help. Mr. Grella commented that one of their volunteers would be the Grella Family and he definitely was for this and thought it a great idea for the celebration. Mr. Infanti added they had done a lot of work and he was impressed. The Rotary raised $3 million dollars for the Boys & Girls Club and raised another $250,000 for the park in Milford. This proves it happens and they got a great start. Mr. MacGuire explained he had talked to Mrs. Quinn and thought it a challenge and exciting. Mr. Bowler remarked they put some work into this and going to the taxpayers would be a hard sell specifically because of the condition of the roads - fundraising was going to be a huge part of this. It was a great idea and suggested they see what dollars they were facing down the road.
Cal Wood, Woodland Drive, asked how many years could they fully fund the Veterans’ tax credit with $2.5 million dollars? Mr. Bowler replied “about ten years”.
Mr. Dinkel was under the impression that the Town was given a Transportation Enhancement Grant. Mr. Veillette explained he had written the grant and he thought Anne Krantz was going to ask the Board to approve it. The only issue is when they will get the money and will report back to them on what the grant actually involves.
Approve Recommendations & Sign
Abatement
Mr. Dinkel advised this was a fairly extensive abatement request and read the note from Scott Marsh of MRI explaining why he approved it for the Anita M. Morris Rev. Trust reducing the assessment from $547,100 to $445,800. Mr. Dinkel quoted from the memo “I reviewed all of the information and although I do not fully agree with the appraisal and its final value estimate, it is my opinion that an assessment adjustment is warranted.” Mr. Dinekl indicated they should keep in mind that the Town is at 80% of value from last year and his preference is to know more about this before approving. Mr. Dinkel moved to table the abatement, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Yield Tax
Mr. Dinkel recommended a yield tax to Brian Wight for $961.79, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Merrimack Valley Regional Water District Request for Funds
Mr. Bowler reported the Board had received a letter from Mike Scanlon, Chairman of the Water District requesting additional funds in the amount of $5000 that they had already contributed once or twice and this would be the third contribution. Mr. Dinkel mentioned that when the District was first formed they were early in donating $5000 with the understanding that there would be approximately 16 other towns. Another $5000 was done in this fiscal year and would be a request for FY ’07. Mr. Bowler advised he had some serious reservations since they already had given $10,000. Mr. Infanti’s concern was that the law firm had postponed $91,000+. After reading an article in the paper, he’d like to know how much the advertising costs were. Mr. Dinkel talked about amounts being reimbursed if the Water District takes over. Mr. Bowler also mentioned payment to a stenographer to take minutes.
Mr. Infanti indicated he would feel more comfortable if he thought a number of other towns were also involved and not seeing anyone else buying into this. Amherst, being in the minority, already paid out $10,000. There is almost $96,000 in legal fees and he was not sure how long this was going to be dragged out and Pennichuck Water seems to be rolling along. Mr. Grella felt the same and it seemed Amherst was footing the bill for other towns that would benefit. He’d like to find out the intent of all the other towns who have signed on. Mr. Dinkel echoed these thoughts. He commented on wanting to see a budget from the District in the past. He believed there were more members of the District than what was indicated. Mr. Panasiti also felt the same way. He had asked to have this committee come in. He thought $96,000 outstanding billing services was quite high and he did not know if they should keep them afloat until this was figured out. Mr. Bowler also agreed. Mr. Dinkel believed the concept was worth staying in. Mr. Dinkel moved to table the request until they have a discussion with a representative from the Merrimack Valley Water District, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Approve & Sign 2005 Tax Lien
Mr. Dinkel moved approval of the tax lien total of $317,678.50 for outstanding taxes for the year 2005, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Life, Long & Short Term Disability Recommendation
Mr. Dinkel stepped down. Mr. MacGuire reported he had looked at proposals from Primex and the Local Government Center. They are currently with LGC and he had met with representatives from both organizations. He presented the Board with a spreadsheet comparing both plans. There were several differences, but in many ways the costs and coverage were the same. Under Short Term Disability the major differences were under temporary recovery, temporary recovery period, partial recovery and integration for the employee. Under Long Term Disability the major differences were accumulation of elimination period, definition of disability, cost of living freeze and use of sick days. The bottom line under Life Insurance, there wasn’t any difference between the two.
Mr. MacGuire indicated that currently we have these three insurances with LGC as well as dental. It may make sense to go with LGC, but will not make a strong recommendation for either. Mr. Infanti mentioned that Primex was giving them a two years on Long Term Disability and Life Insurance which was an advantage because he had never seen insurance premiums go down which was a point in their favor. Temporary recovery appears in the Town’s favor with Primex for six months. Recovery period is something he did not get a strong read on. With all things being equal, he saw Primex guaranteeing their rates for two years which was a big difference. He would rather put all “his eggs in one basket” if someone was guaranteeing things for two years. Mr. Grella agreed with Mr. Infanti. Mr. Panasiti remarked that he did not understand much about either one since both compared. The only thing he would question is the one year rate guarantee and was it negotiable. Some terms looked better than Primex, but not if it is a one year deal. Mr. Bowler agreed, but also suggested to see if this was negotiable. They had LGC for several years and have had no complaints with them. He asked if there were any approvals needed from the Union? Mr. MacGuire advised the coverage is what was required, not the company. LGC is the company they have known all along and is the way the Board is leaning towards them, but this was not really solid one way or the other. Mr. Infanti moved to table the decision until their June 12 meeting, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: 3-1, Mr. Grella opposed.
Mr. Dinkel returned to the Board.
Appoint Planning Board Members
Mr. Infanti moved to appoint Richard Hart as an alternate to the Planning Board, term to expire 2007 as a representative from the Conservation Commission, second by Mr. Panasiti. Discussion: Mr. Infanti thought the term would give Mr. Hart time to see if this worked for him. They can always re-review him next year. Mr. Bowler agreed and was in support of having a representative from Conservation. Mr. Grella asked when his term on Conservation expired? Mr. Bowler advised it expired in 2008. Mr. Panasiti asked if after a year he feels he is not the person for that job, did this negate the Conservation from having a rep on the Planning Board? Mr. Bowler indicated that they voted to have a member from the Conservation and could vote next year not to have a member.
Mr. Dinkel remarked the motion is to have the individual for one year as an alternate member. He said he felt a bit bad about this and voted against Conservation as a permanent slot. It was pointed out to him that after this vote, that there were two applications coming up (one they saw that night) and wondered if a Conservation member could serve in an unbiased position. He made it clear that he was not singling out Mr. Hart. In response to Mr. Panasiti’s comment, Mr. Dinkel indicated he was talking about direct conflict and thought they were setting up a bigger conflict by giving Conservation a vote on matters that they have an interest in and a biased by their statute and charge. Mr. Panasiti did not see it this way. Mr. Dinkel explained that if a person is on Conservation, they were charged with preserving open space and he believed there was a potential bias. Mr. Bowler stated he voted for it last time and there is one application on Brook Road and a new member should not even be voting on it.
Mr. Dinkel said he would not hold up the vote unless someone else of the three wanted to change their position. Mr. Grella remarked this was a real philosophical question and they could go on and on about conflict of interest because someone was an abutter of an application before any group – the person has the ability to step down. Mr. Dinkel indicated this was his point. A Conservation designated person will have to step down just because of their current role in Town and because they want to expand it. Was this the most effective person they want because this person will have to step down on numerous occasions?
Mr. Panasiti thought this was a good discussion. From Mr. Dinkel’s argument, then they hold the Conservation nay Sayers to development. He saw it as “checks and balances”. If they were there to make sure land is developed properly with Conservation in mind, with Mr. Dinkel’s definition no Conservation member could vote because they are bound to not develop any land and to purchase land for open space. He did not think making sure development doesn’t happen was Conservation’s ambition in life. They have two different philosophies on what Conservation does. Mr. Dinkel commented that Conservation owns and manages hundreds of acres around Town. He agreed that the role of Conservation should be integrate and have an input is the same as someone who votes on a potential conflict. Mr. Panasiti remarked that in several Conservation meetings he had sat in on, plans had been put forth and the Planning Board had come to them for their input. There were certain things Conservation watches out for. The input from them is vital for a determination to build or expand or to do what they need to do for their property. This was the input Conservation should give to the Planning Board. Mr. Dinkel agreed with him on the input, but went over the line in creating a potential bad position for Richard Hart or whatever individual is put in that position. However, no one on the “winning side” last week wanted to revisit the vote. He would much prefer not going down there and think it as a Statutorial role and a downside for the Town and the individual put in this position.
Mr. Bowler agreed and was one of the decisive votes. He did not think members of the Conservation Commission are going to want Rich Hart making decisions without going back to the Commission. He will still have to see the plans and make recommendations prior to a meeting. This brings up another issue and not what he envisioned to happen. He felt he would bring forth the beliefs of the Commission. Mr. Infanti indicated he understood there is a meeting with Charlie Tiedemann and Jim Bowen to review plans prior. This is one review he has. When talking to Mr. Bowen, he said he felt he got very good information in this phase. He thought this would go back to Conservation and discussed with them and Mr. Hart would come back to the Planning Board with any Conservation concerns. He believed the policy is that Conservation is involved from the beginning. It may not be interactive on the Planning Board at this point, but there are members from Conservation who express their opinion. He was willing to try Mr. Hart as a member for one year. If he is going to have someone talking for Conservation, he would want that person be from Conservation speaking as Conservation’s voice. He would go with one year with Rich Hart to see where this goes. Mr. Bowler concurred.
Liz Overholt, Boston Post Road, commented that she thought she heard some possibility of considering a vote and wanted to address this. If she had it correct, the Planning Board upholds the RSA’s, Master Plan and Ordinances and she guessed Conservation was included. She asked why wasn’t Recreation, Fire, Heritage Commission and Historic District Commission members? She thought it appeared they were advisory and she didn’t understand adding Conservation. Vote on Rich Hart for a one year term: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel moved to appoint Marilyn Peterman as an alternate, term to expire 2009, second by Mr. Infanti. Discussion: Mr. Panasiti thought Mrs. Peterman had broad knowledge and expertise and had served on the Planning Board for a long time. His reservation was that it would be a great time to put in a new person to begin getting them up to speed – a younger someone interested who they would get on now and play an intricate part as she has done in the past. Mrs. Peterman being on the NRPC and Water District, serves them very well. He would like to see some “fresh blood” on the Planning Board. Mr. Dinkel agreed with the concept, but because of the vote two weeks ago, they pre-empted getting a new person. He had the most utmost respect for Mrs. Peterman and they may take away the rare opportunity of her knowledge and expertise on the Board.
Mr. Grella commented that during the past 5-6 weeks he had heard comments from residents in Amherst that there should be a change in the Planning Board. The feedback was almost unanimous to make a change for someone new on that Board for both members and alternates – these changes were he received were from emails and articles in the newspapers. Mr. Infanti remarked that Rich Hart was a new alternate, Paul Doherty a new alternate, Cliff Harris a new member as was he himself. There were five members and half of the Planning Board is new and they can’t afford to have another new alternate on the Board because they don’t have one that was seasoned for a year. He believed there will be one full Board member possibly leaving within the next few months. No one can change the charge of the Planning Board. Marilyn Peterman has been accused of having a special interest as well as a few members of the Board of Selectmen. It was an insult to Gordon Leedy, Sally Wilkins and himself. Because he sells paint, he has been accused of having a conflict of interest. Planning Board members step down if there is a conflict – there are concise rules. To put a fifth new person on the Planning Board is a mistake. He tried to respond to at least ten people who did not want to appoint Mrs. Peterman. Mr. Bowler indicated they all got those letters and wondered if Mr. Dinkel would be willing to change the motion to one year? Mr. Dinkel advised he would have no problem amending the motion to one year, as did Mr. Infanti. Vote: 3-2, Mr. Grella and Mr. Panasiti opposed.
Mr. Infanti reported the Amherst Town Clean-Up was postponed to June 10. He had also attended a Cemetery Trustees Meeting. At the last Recreation Commission Meeting the subject of Cemetery Fields came up and the Trustees were asked if they would sell or trade Cemetery Fields to the Recreation Commission. A letter was sent back to them indicating they were not interested in selling or swapping the property and signed by all three Trustees.
Mr. Grella reported he attended a Heritage Commission meeting where the landscaping plan out front was discussed. Anne Krantz put forth a plan for landscaping and the HDC went along with it. He briefly described the use of curbing and indicated that the Selectmen will be hearing more from the Heritage Commission soon.
Mr. Panasiti reported there was an issue regarding mileage from PMEC that needs some clarification. He reported the Recreation Commission’s discussion wasn’t even a formal question to the Trustees. The Commission was talking about the lease for Cemetery Fields in 2014. He thought there is going to be some major discussion about land and recreational space and this was going to be an issue. There are some real deep seeded issues about this property. They will be talking about the issue of recreational needs and cemetery needs. Mr. Infanti thought the message was the Trustees know there will be field issues and want recreation to know this. Mr. Panasiti added they will address this again for purposes of additional space. Mr. Bowler remarked that he was disappointed that this came up again. Mr. Dinkel pointed out that this speaks to the vote about new people vs. experienced people. Mr. Panasiti indicated that one of the effective committee members was a former Selectman.
Mr. Bowler complimented Mr. MacGuire, EMS, Fire, and Police on the outstanding job they did during the flood assembling Sunday morning at 9:30 and came up with a plan. DPW was working in the rain on issues and Spring Road was still closed. FEMA was also out on Saturday touring the area and he thanked them for coming to the Town as quickly as they did. Gary and his crew did an outstanding job and needed to be commended – “on behalf of the Town, we thank you”. Mr. MacGuire told the Board that they will be coming in on the 12th to give them a quick synopsis and can thank them at that time. Mr. Bowler reported he had forwarded pictures to Brian. He commented that it was amazing to see some of the water and had never seen water on 101.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2006, second by Mr. Grella amended as follows: Insert at the beginning of the minutes that the Board met at 6:30 p.m. to review the site of White Cliff’s proposal. Line 151 – Change “discussion” to “discussions”; Line 158 – Insert “hundred” after “several”; Line 260 – Insert before “He” “In response to Mr. Panasiti’s question”; Line 279 – Correct the spelling of “Richard”; Line 341 – Change “thee” to “the”.
Mr. Bowler asked the Board if they wanted to televise Board of Health meetings in the future? He personally did not think they should be televised. Mr. Infanti thought they should if the discussion centered around EEE or bigger issues, however, to give a waiver on a septic tank it shouldn’t be. Mr. Grella agreed and only if it affected the health issues of the citizens. Mr. Dinkel agreed. The one they saw that night was pretty significant and he hated to impose on their volunteers. It was tough to determine what was important and they would be the ones editing and they shouldn’t be. Mr. Panasiti agreed with everyone else’s opinion.
Mr. Bowler commented that at the last meeting they received a donation from Steve Sexton. A very nice letter was written to him, but he would like to invite him in for their next meeting on the 12th or 26th and give him recognition.
Mr. Grella reminded the Board about the Memorial Day Parade. Mr. Panasiti reminded the Board about their training session on the 23rd at 7:00 p.m. In response to Mr. Bowler’s question regarding attendance, Mr. MacGuire indicated he had not had a response back from every organization invited and assume they will have three members present. He will be meeting with Bill Drescher the next day and they should be in good shape.
Mr. Bowler reminded the Board to review dates for discussion their setting of goals.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Infanti, second by Mr. Grella, the Board adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant