-
City Council Meeting
Minutes
March 12, 2007
Non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 2, I (b) to discuss
collective bargaining and non-public
session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations,
Penacook Mill and Scandia Hall following the meeting.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Action: Councilor Bennett moved approval of the February 12, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded. Councilor Bennett referencing page 17 of the minutes which read that “Councilor Bennett moved the question” noted that this should be corrected to read “Councilor Brochu moved the question.” The motion to approve, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Rogers moved approval of the February 14, 2005 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Doris Ballard noted that over 250 individual artists from the Concord community/region will be participating in the Arts Telefest. She explained that over eighty volunteers will be participating and helping out with the telefest and further noted that CCTV collaborated with twenty three arts organizations and six schools that will be featured in the telefest this year.
Julie Turner thanked City Manager Tom Aspell for taping a promotion for the telefest and some pieces that will be aired during the telefest.
- Consent Agenda Items –
Note: Those items listed as pulled from the consent agenda will be discussed at the end of the meeting following unfinished business.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the consent agenda, as amended, with items 18, 21, 26, 27 and 29 removed to be discussed at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Items Tabled for an April 9, 2007 Public Hearing
From the City Manager
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Consent Reports
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
30. Report from the Library Director regarding the acceptance of an additional gift from the Concord Public Library Foundation for FY2007.
31. Report from the Finance Director on behalf of the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee (FPAC) recommending the acceptance of the FY2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the report of the Trustees of Trust. (Revised report together with minutes from the March 8, 2007 Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee meeting submitted)
Consent Resolutions
33. Resolution proposing an act relative to the use of the premium received in connection with the sale of bonds or notes of the City of Concord; together with report from the City Treasurer.
34. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to make applications for the multiple phases of the Manchester Street and Route 3 North/Fisherville Road Corridor projects not to exceed the amount of $1,000,000 for each phase/project from the Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program; together with report from the Community Development Project Manager.
35. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply from time to time for grants from the Alice J. Reen Charitable Trust for purposes consistent with the mission of the Concord Public Library; together with report from the Library Director.
36. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept from the State of New Hampshire Department of Safety Homeland Security Lawnet Grant Program, up to forty-five portable radios and related equipment with a value of up to $250,000; together with report from the Police Department.
Consent Communications
39. Street closure request from the Concord Farmers Market requesting that Capitol Street be closed to vehicular traffic on Saturday’s from June 2, 2007 through October 27, 2007.
40. Street closure request from the Bektash Shriners for a parade to be held on Main Street in Concord on April 21, 2007.
Appointments
**End of Consent Agenda**
A. Public hearing regarding the removal of an easement across the property at 13 Rolinda Avenue, parcel 9C-1-19, together with report from the Planning Board. (11-12) (1-20) (2-59G; 2-66) (Report from the City Solicitor submitted; communication from Councilor McClure and public testimony receive in Feb) (Supplemental information from the City Planner submitted) (Public hearing continued from February 12, 2007) (Additional public testimony received)
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Bouley declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Attorney James Morris, Orr and Reno, provided a brief overview explaining that this item concerns the application to have the city close a right of way that has not been used in twenty six years. Mr. Morris indicated that the purpose of the right of way was for utilities and for access to a school that was never built noting that utilities are currently available along Iron Works Road so that the need for utilities along this right of way is no longer applicable. Mr. Morris indicated that the proposed length of the sidewalk that would use this right of way is approximately 900 feet through some wetlands. He noted that he feels that this is potentially dangerous because of its length, because it is not patrolled, and because there are no residences in sight. Mr. Morris noted that he had testified at the February Council meeting that there was an alternative right of way that may be available off of New Castle Street which is closer and which does not appear to impact wetlands. Referencing a March 5, 2007 memorandum from City Planner Doug Woodward, Mr. Morris pointed out that Mr. Woodward includes a reference to a design charrette that was put together in the 1990’s and further pointed out that Mr. Woodward concludes that some of the South Concord Meadows open land could make a logical expansion of Russell Martin Park. With regards to the charrette, Mr. Morris pointed out that in the area of the path there is a notation that states mown path through natural meadow area and noted that it was clear that it had been recognized that this would be going through a wetlands area and was recognized as a moan path. Mr. Morris further pointed out, to the left of the baseball fields shown on the plan, that there is an area called “overflow parking” and noted that the “overflow parking” is not currently owned by the city explaining that this is the tail end of the South Concord Meadows property. He noted that for this parking to be implemented, South Concord Meadows would have to be approached for acquisition indicating that it would be easy to approach them at the same time to receive the rights of the right of way off of New Castle Street. Mr. Morris, referencing Councilor McClure’s letter which indicates that the thirty foot entrance onto New Castle Street from South Concord Meadows is not a deeded right of way, noted that this is a correct statement and added that this entrance is a reserved right that does go out into New Castle Street, which is a public way, and goes into a twenty acre area that was dedicated to agricultural, recreational, open space, and farming uses. He suggested that this thirty foot wide area that leads to New Castle Street would have no purpose if the sole purpose were to accommodate residents of South Concord Meadows because they would not need this access to New Castle Street noting that he feels that it is clear that when the Planning Board looked at this and approved it that they were looking for public access through this thirty foot wide strip into this area. In conclusion, Mr. Morris indicated that there is sufficient evidence before Council to decide that the right of way through the Brown’s property is not necessary and at the very least set aside the time to contact Mr. Micetti, Principal of MSCM Realty Corporation, to investigate the thirty foot wide strip leading from New Castle Street.
Councilor Lemieux explained that when an easement is sought for utilities there is usually a price that is paid for the easement. He inquired whether an attempt was made to determine the value of the easement should it be returned to the property owner. Mr. Morris responded that a value has not been determined.
Patrick Chalou, 7 Rolinda Avenue, noted that several residents from Rolinda Avenue were present this evening. He added that Dr. Richard and Sue Benson and Jim and Donna Lynch, unable to attend this evening, submitted correspondences stating their opposition to having any pathway. Mr. Chalou noted that if Council were to contemplate placing a path through the easement, the city would have to contend with drainage issues explaining that it is a very wet area. He noted his concern that individuals will wander from Russell Martin field through the neighborhood further noting the concern of possible parking issues on Rolinda Avenue. He added that he doesn’t feel that there is a need for a pathway in this area noting that this is the general contention of the neighborhood represented this evening.
Gerry Mark, 10 Rolinda Avenue, noted his agreement with Mr. Chalou’s concerns adding that he feels that there are several safety issues involved including concerns with possible parking issues.
Margaret Lind, 38 Norwich Street and member of the Greater Concord Safe Community Coalition, indicated that the coalition is currently working with Rundlett Middle School and Conant Elementary School on a safe route project. She noted that until there is another possible access, she feels that it would be premature to take this easement away. She noted concerns that neighbors have indicating that she feels that this needs to be studied more. Ms. Lind referenced the Concord 2020 goal of connecting villages to places where there is recreational opportunity for children to come to and families to walk to and that attention needs to be given to this fact that this may be an important neighborhood connection to the fields.
Councilor Coen inquired whether Ms. Lind has had the opportunity to walk within this area. Ms. Lind responded that she has not had the opportunity to walk this area adding that she would like this area studied from an engineer’s point of view to see what connections can be made through South Concord Meadows if possible.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed.
B. Resolution changing the disposition of revenues collected under RSA 79-A Current Use Taxation; together with report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. (2-18) (Revised resolution submitted; together with testimony from the Turkey River Basin Trust) (Additional public testimony received)
Action: Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Christopher Morgan, Conservation Commission Chair, indicated that the Conservation Commission is opposed to a reduction in the percentage of the land use change tax revenues deposited to the conservation fund noting that it is felt that this should not be the source of savings in the budget at this time. Mr. Morgan explained that the city has had an open space plan since 1978 which was revised in 1993 and has been revisited as part of an update to the master plan. He explained that the plan has always included ambitious goals for preserving the city’s natural resources, farm, forest land, river corridors, and other important assets. He explained that during the public meetings held as part of the master plan update, funding for protection of open space was by far the most often stated priority of individuals who came to the meetings. Mr. Morgan indicated that since the vote to contribute 100 percent of the land use change tax to the conservation fund in 2002 and further with the approval of the $5 million bond in 2004, the city has had the resources to implement its open space plan. He explained that significant progress has been made on the goals: more than 1,600 acres have been protected since 2001; most of it since the 2002 vote. He explained that the projects; Carter Hill Orchard, the sod farm, land on the Merrimack River, Dimond Hill Farm, Rossview Farm and others leveraged $3.8 million from other sources of funding or sixty percent of the total purchase price. Mr. Morgan noted that there still is a long way to go to implement the open space plan and that they are currently working on over six projects in all areas of the city involving approximately 600 acres. He added that with high property prices and high expectations for sale prices on the part of many landowners, it takes a lot of time and effort to bring these projects to a successful conclusion. He further added that there is less funding available to leverage from federal and state sources and there is a limit as to what can be raised privately. Mr. Morgan indicated that beyond the immediate projects that the Conservation Commission is working on, the open space plan has identified other areas such as Broken Ground. He noted that the Conservation Commission has been prudent with the funding made available in the conservation fund and recognizes that use of the bond funds involves a cost for debt service explaining the source has only been used twice. Mr. Morgan stated that it is important to maintain the 100 percent land use change tax contribution for ongoing efforts that will achieve the goals of the plan while preserving the bond funds and for land protection into the future once the bond funds are exhausted. He added that the Conservation Commission does not support a 50/50 split in the land use change tax as has been discussed and strongly supports maintaining the 100 percent contribution into the conservation fund.
Councilor Brochu, referencing the tax structure, inquired as to the amount of drop in taxes that the city receives when an easement is purchased. Mr. Morgan responded that in almost all of the land looked at for open space; the land is in current use so the taxes are quite low. Mr. Morgan added that if there was a property that was not in current use and an easement is placed on the property that would have a greater affect on the taxes.
Councilor Black inquired whether any portion of open space property could be sold when making an open space acquisition. Mr. Morgan responded that in many cases when talking to the landowner, the commission does discuss purchasing back land or land with limited or no frontage explaining that in the past, there have been many acquisitions where the commission has purchased back land and the landowner has retained the road frontage. He explained that in the case of Dimond Hill, there was some land that was held out of the protection for the potential sale on Currier Road. Councilor Black referencing the land acquired on Elm Street in Penacook, noted that he felt that the commission had spent too much on this land and inquired whether harder bargaining could be done to get the prices down on land. Mr. Morgan explained that the Elm Street acquisition was an exception because it was purchased under a right of first refusal from the B&M Railroad. He noted that the state law provides that the city can purchase any property offered for sale by a railroad under the same terms that the railroad has a signed purchase and sale agreement adding that there wasn’t any opportunity to bargain.
Councilor Nyhan, referencing the Conservation Commission’s policy on how land is acquired, inquired whether it’s to protect all open space or whether specific parcels are targeted. Councilor Nyhan further inquired whether there has been land that the commission has looked at and has chosen not to purchase. Mr. Morgan responded that over the past several years the commission has looked at the city as a whole and identified some priority areas and features of properties that are proposed for acquisition for open space such as: Merrimack River frontage, farm land, larger tracts of undeveloped land, and land that abuts existing city conservation land. Mr. Morgan indicated that there have been occasions when the commission looked at land or spoke to landowners and have not been able to come to an agreement either because of price or felt that it wasn’t in the best interest of the city.
Councilor Coen asked Mr. Morgan to clarify the discussion held with members of the commission and the Finance Director. Mr. Morgan explained that two members and Councilor Swope had met with Finance Director Jim Howard and City Planner Doug Woodward. He indicated that Mr. Howard had explained the situation with the upcoming budget with regard to some of the unusual expenses and demands on the budget this year with one of the items being the debt service on the existing bond payments for the bond funds that have already been used. Mr. Morgan explained that different scenarios had been discussed as to how the conservation fund or future land use change tax proceeds could help contribute to reducing the budget problems. He indicated that at the conclusion of that meeting, several issues had been discussed including the possibility of taking some money off the top from the land use change proceeds allowing the rest of it to go into the conservation fund at100 percent but allowing that certain sum of money, whatever it may be, to go into the general fund. Mr. Morgan explained that, with his limited knowledge of the budget process that all aspects of the city budget need to be considered and possibly contribute to solving this problem, he felt that this was reasonable and had agreed to take this to the commission for discussion. He explained that the commission did not receive a formal communication on what the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee discussed and voted on so the commission discussed the issue in general at one of their meetings and the consensus was to support maintaining 100 percent as is.
Councilor Nyhan asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Morgan is suggesting that he would like to go back to the Conservation Commission and propose that the commission pay off its own debt service. Mr. Morgan responded that he was not making that suggestion.
Councilor Brochu, referencing land along the river, noted that this is low land and very unbuildable and inquired what this land could be used for. Mr. Morgan responded that what was purchased was permanent protection of the land with the knowledge that the definition of flood plain can change and with a change in zoning, the property could be developed. He added that the property could be developed under portions of current flood plain rules adding that there had been various proposals over the years.
Mayor Donovan asked whether Mr. Morgan agreed, that with the $5 million bond authorization and the balance in the conservation acquisition fund, that the Conservation Commission acquisition program is in a better position than it has ever been before. Mr. Morgan indicated this to be a fair statement.
Patrick O’Donnell, Oak Hill Road and member of the Board of Trustees for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forest, noted that he has a favorable impression of the way in which the city has had in regards in to approaching conservation. He noted his opposition to taking any of the funds designated for conservation and dedicating to another use. Mr. O’Donnell noted his concern with using this as a budgetary tool particularly since there is so much enthusiasm for spending dollars on conservation.
Dan Williams, Portsmouth Street, indicated that he feels that the city has done a good job of preserving open space and noted that he feels that it would be terrible to limit the ability to preserve open space. He urged Council not to divert any money out of the conservation fund.
Fran Philippe, East Side Drive, urged Council not to take 100 percent of the
money for land use change tax. She noted that open space is very important and
if Council can ensure that the Conservation Commission always has the ability to
preserve land it would be an overall benefit to the city.
Bruce Clendenning, Morton Street, indicated that he was pleased with Council’s 2002 decision to putting money towards conservation. He noted the need for money to be available when opportunities come up for open space. Mr. Clendenning urged Council to keep the current system noting that he feels it is an appropriate use of the city’s money because it will keep alive strategic opportunities to act when these opportunities come around.
Joel Harrington, Cherry Street, noted that land conservation is a long term savings for the city. He added that if less money is placed in the fund, the city will not be able to do large scale projects when opportunities arise.
Chris Kane, Donovan Street, noted his opposition to the proposed resolution. He
noted that he feels strongly that Council made a good decision in 2002 when they
enacted the current disposition of the current use land change tax indicating
that he feels that it is an appropriate use of the funds.
Ted Diers, Broadway, urged Council to keep the current land use change tax disposition to the conservation fund noting that it’s a small amount that has the potential to leverage very large amounts of money.
Andy Duncan, Kimball Street, noted his opposition to the proposed resolution
before Council. He noted that he feels that residents would prefer to keep
streets unpaved and to use that money towards conservation projects within the
city. He noted that he feels that the decision before Council this evening is a
quality of life decision.
Allan Herschlag, Wildflower Drive, noted that he feels that reasons to value
land and conservation include: aesthetic and financial, protection of the
quality of the air and water, limit traffic congestion, to establish
connectivity between parcels of open space. He indicated that protecting open
space is an integral part of the community’s successful growth plan and without
funds to protect open space the community loses an important tool to direct
growth according to the city’s master plan.
David Howe, Wildemere Terrace and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Five
Rivers Conservation Trust, noted his support to continue funding conservation
with the current land use change tax. He indicated that he views this
principally as an investment to continue the quality of life that is enjoyed in
the city. He explained that the city’s role in conservation is critical and
emphasized that conservation can be good economics.
Chris Miller, Portsmouth Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed resolution. He urged Council to preserve the tools that the Conservation Commission has to accomplish open space.
Lindley Shutz, Via Tranquilla, urged Council to uphold the tax as it currently
stands keeping the funds dedicated 100 percent towards conservation. Ms. Shutz
explained that if the city is going to continue to depend on private donors to
step in to make up the bulk of many of the purchases, it takes the sense that
this is a partnership. She noted that this is an important vote for Council to
make and it is her hope that the master plan and the 2020 vision has been worth
all of the time and investment.
Katharine Fox, Warren Street, noted she is in favor of 100 percent of the land
use change tax to continue to go into the conservation fund. Ms. Fox noted that
the challenge of funding the city’s operations will never disappear but the open
space will and urged Council not to jeopardize the future of open space and to
vote to consider 100 percent funding of the conservation fund.
James McConaha, Cypress Street, indicated that the idea of taking the money that
is recaptured and using it toward repaving streets is a perversion of the intent
of the law and section that allows for the recapture of land which came out of
current use because the purpose was to achieve some long term advantage from
that decision that community had made and that the idea is that the money would
be available to purchasing conservation easements and to stay in conservation.
He urged Council to look back at the intent of the statute and indicated that
the way it has been administered in Concord has been in the spirit of that law.
Mr. McConaha noted that if the conservation fund and the balance in the bond is
currently in good shape, he feels that the city should undertake a far more
aggressive effort to approach landowners and sell them on the advantages of
putting the land in long term easements.
Mayor Donovan noted for public record that Edwin Robinson, Mary Beth Robinson,
Stephen Lee, and Wendy Black did not want to speak but submitted public
testimony in opposition to the proposed resolution before Council.
Gail Page, East Side Drive, spoke in opposition to removing funds from
conservation. She noted that land that is not developed but instead conserved,
adds quality to the city as a whole. She noted her concern that once funds are
removed from conservation, it may be difficult to get this money back.
Meredith Hatfield, Perkins Street, noted that she feels that if decisions are made such as taking money out of open space funding it will have an impact on the overall community. She noted her concerns with the widening of I-93 and the loss of funds impacting the ability to save critical linkages identified along the river. Ms. Hatfield urged Council to vote against the proposed resolution.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Councilor McClure moved to take item 47 out of order for action. The motion was
duly seconded and failed on a voice vote.
C. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV, Zoning Code; Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance; Article 28-2, Zoning Districts and Allowable Uses; Article 28-4, Development Design Standards; and Article 28-5, Supplemental Standards, Mandatory Cluster. (12-21) (1-11) (2-10)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview reminding Council that once a zoning ordinance is
advertised, that zoning ordinance is in place. He explained that there are two
sets of zoning ordinances in place and until Council resolves this item, there
will continue to be two sets of ordinances in place.
Councilor Brochu inquired as to what staff is following. Mr. Aspell responded that staff would follow the most restrictive.
Councilor Blanchard questioned as to why this is being done prior to the master
plan. Mr. Aspell responded that at the Priority Setting Meeting,
Council voted to move ahead with zoning proposals instead of waiting for the
master plan.
Councilor McClure asked for clarification as to whether the issue that was
desired to be brought forward was the four acre zoning. Mr. Aspell explained
that there were two issues including the four acre zoning and the mandatory
cluster. He explained that at the December Council meeting, Council decided not
to move ahead with the four acre zoning and to just move ahead with the
mandatory cluster. Councilor McClure inquired whether Council is aware of the
Planning Board’s deliberations and decisions about this issue. Mr. Aspell
responded that Council discussed the fact that the Planning Board recommended
four acre zoning as does the master plan in 2001.
The Mayor declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Tim Golde, Timberline Drive, spoke in favor of this amendment to the Code of
Ordinances noting that he feels that a balance of growth with the protection of
open space is important. He indicated that this proposed amendment to the
ordinance inverts the way that growth is handled in an open space residential
district. Mr. Golde indicated that single family dwellings in cluster
developments will be the norm in the future and single family dwellings in a
standard subdivision fashion will only be allowed by conditional use. He noted
that if a cluster type of development is to be the norm, he questions why there
needs to be a buffer requirement even if it is reduced in smaller projects that
are four lots or less. He noted that he feels that phased or slow growth is as
important as balanced growth and if there needs to be a perimeter buffer around
what is now the norm in this zone, his fear is that this will be a disincentive
to doing things in a slow managed fashion. He asked that Council consider
removing the buffer requirement or at the very least, have it not be necessary
between two phases of the same project or where it already abuts a piece of
conservation land. Referencing the end of the ordinance, Mr. Golde inquired why
an option C couldn’t be added that states a combination of the above. He noted
that he feels that with an option C, because it would be a combination of both,
there will be larger percentages in conservation. In conclusion, Mr. Golde
noted his support of the amendment but feels that with minor changes it could be
used in a better way with more success.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether Mr. Golde had the opportunity to testify and
recommend those changes to the Planning Board. Mr. Golde responded that most of
the meetings that he had attended or observed were relative to the lot sizes.
Councilor Blanchard referencing land that is not readily accessible to city
water and sewer infrastructure inquired whether there is the need for concern
for too many wells and septic systems too close together. Mr. Golde responded
that if there isn’t any infrastructure of water and sewer then there needs to be
an onsite well and septic system and the rules are in place to evaluate the
onsite soil and appropriately design such systems but not to have them too
close. Councilor Blanchard inquired whether there could be larger ones to
accommodate an entire development. Mr. Golde explained that there are several
communities in which community systems are encouraged and constructed.
Councilor McClure inquired as to whether Mr. Golde had looked at some of his own
projects when developing some of these suggested changes to the proposed
ordinance to see how this would affect those developments. She asked Mr. Golde
to explain why he has taken the two points suggested and how they would affect
his project. Mr. Golde responded that he has done a number
of projects including ones in other communities that have a cluster or open
space provision in their ordinance and indicated that he has sat before Planning
Boards, representing a client who wants to do what the Planning Board wants them
to have done, but the provisions of that section of the ordinance become so
difficult to achieve that they actually prevent them from doing what the
community and the board wants them to do. Mr. Golde referencing the ordinance
in the City of Concord, explained that he has assisted clients with projects
that make it through rounds one through three but have no way to meet the next
ones so he ends up advising clients not to pursue cluster type developments
within the city because its too difficult to achieve. He explained that what he
is trying to implore upon Council to do is to make this a tool that can be
utilized to achieve what was heard about earlier this evening.
Councilor Coen inquired whether Mr. Golde is in support or opposition of the
proposed ordinance. Mr. Golde responded that he is support of a provision that
will achieve more contiguous parcels and open space which this does. Councilor
Coen inquired whether he would make any changes.
Mr. Golde explained that it won’t be utilized as much as it would with a few
minor changes.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
D. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV, subdivision code; Chapter 29.2, Public Capital Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; Section 29.2-1-2, Assessment and Collection; together with report from the Planning Board. (2-19)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview explaining that what is before Council is the annual
revisit on the school, recreation, and traffic impact fees. He indicated that
under the proposal that staff prepared the proposal for adjusting the school
impact fees and the recreational impact fees will go up 6.86 percent and the
transportation facilities impact fees is proposed to go up 3.24 percent.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether this is the second time the fees have been
adjusted since the Impact Fee Ordinance Fee was passed in 2001. Mr. Aspell
indicated that to be correct noting that it has not been done every year. Mayor
Donovan inquired whether this will be reviewed every year. Mr. Aspell indicated
that to be correct.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether staff has looked at what other cities are
doing in regards to impact fees noting that she had heard the comment that
Concord’s seems to be high. Mr. Aspell responded that staff is aware of what
other cities are charging explaining that impact fees are tailored specifically
to a given community.
Mayor Donovan explained that when this ordinance was passed in 2001, the
committee did look at other communities before making final recommendations.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
E. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV, Zoning Code; Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance; Article 28-2, Zoning Districts and Allowable Uses; Section 28-2-3, The Zoning Map; together with report from the Planning Board in response to a communication from the Capital Regional Development Council requesting that current zoning be changed from Office Park Performance (OFP) to Industrial (IN) for vacant parcels within the Airport Business Park. (10-11) (12-28) (1-23) (2-20)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview.
Mayor Donovan referencing the covenant noted that as he reads this the covenant
stays in effect until an aquifer protection ordinance is passed by the Planning
Board. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct. Mayor Donovan indicated that
he had made an earlier inquiry as to whether the covenant indicates an agreement
that if an aquifer protection ordinance is passed then the land is subject to
that. Mayor Donovan questioned whether the response was no that it is not
because no sane person would agree to comply with an ordinance that they hadn’t
seen yet. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct. Mayor Donovan noted that
the problem he has, as it is written, is that if an aquifer protection ordinance
comes into being it doesn’t apply to this land but the covenant is then gone
because it expires and then there would be no protection. Mr. Aspell indicated
that to be correct explaining that when an aquifer protection district is done
that it does cover the areas that are outlined within the covenant. Mayor
Donovan noted that it wouldn’t legally apply because they are not agreeing to
that. Mr. Aspell indicated that what was discussed with Capital Regional
Development Council is that one would transition into the other. Mayor Donovan
reiterated his concern that it wouldn’t legally apply.
Councilor McClure indicated that the impression at the Planning Board was that
the covenant would cover it until there is an aquifer protection ordinance.
Mayor Donovan noted that this does not indicate an agreement on the part of the
landowner that a new aquifer protection district would indeed apply when these
expire.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Niel Cannon, Capital Regional Development Council, explained that this rezoning
was requested in September to change what was then six unsold lots to IN from
OFP with the reason being, given the neighborhood character and the market,
there was no demand for office. Mr. Cannon indicated that there was significant
demand for warehouse distribution because of the proximity of the site to Route
106 noting that warehouse distribution is consistent with the economic
development objectives of the city and is often high value and low impact. He
explained that in order to address the concerns of the Planning Board, City
Council, and the Town of Pembroke a covenant has been developed that includes
several items, including: certain groundwater protection language and also
limits some uses with twelve uses being specifically prohibited by covenant that
are otherwise allowed under IN such as bulk storage of fuels, chemicals,
automotive uses, gasoline stations, dry cleaning, etc.; regulates outside
storage. He indicated that per discussions with the Planning Board, the
requests were amended with the Planning Board’s recommendations reflecting that
zoning would be changed on four to six unsold lots. Mr. Cannon indicated that
there are currently agreements on five lots and if these buildings go forward
that is approximately $12 million to $14 million in tax base. He explained that
two of these lots require the change because they are warehouse and
distribution, more than half of the tax base. Mr. Cannon indicated that he
would like Council to vote to move forward with attorneys working out the
concern of the loophole that was brought up. He explained that it was CRDC’s
intent that this covenant would last until an ordinance is passed by Council
that addresses aquifer protection. He indicated that if an ordinance is passed
it would only affect unsold property for which there are not Planning Board
approvals noting that if an ordinance is passed a year from now and a lot is
built out, the ordinance would not apply.
Mayor Donovan indicated that it is his understanding that in either of these
scenarios, the covenant expires when an aquifer protection ordinance is adopted
so there would be no protection of groundwater because the covenants would be
gone and the ordinance wouldn’t apply. Mr. Cannon responded that the covenant
addresses what is allowed and what both CRDC and the Planning Board will be
policing. He noted that CRDC does not want there to be a loophole and indicated
that he believed that the assumption is that the ordinance would be more
comprehensive than the covenant explaining that the covenant is needed now to
move forward and the city needs the time to draft and implement an ordinance.
Mayor Donovan noted his concern that it wouldn’t have taken this long if groundwater protection were not something that the Planning Board took seriously. Mayor Donovan reiterated his concern with there being a loophole and indicated that a simple solution might be if the Planning Board, as a condition of approval of site plan approval affix the covenants themselves to site plan approvals therefore making the covenants permanent. Mr. Cannon indicated that he feels that this would be acceptable.
Paul Whittemore, Pembroke Water Works Superintendent, noted that Pembroke Water
Works would like to recognize the Planning Board and CRDC for their efforts with
the proposed covenant for the Henniker Street/Antrim Avenue area. He noted
their appreciation that Pembroke was given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed land use changes and that Pembroke was included in the process to
develop the proposed covenant. Mr. Whittemore explained that this area is very
sensitive for the protection of high plains aquifer that both Concord and
Pembroke use for drinking water supply. He noted that he feels that the
covenant may be the beginning for Concord to consider an aquifer conservation
district similar to Pembroke’s in an effort to protect this drinking water
supply from adverse affects from certain types of land uses within this area.
Introducing Dave MacLean, geologist, Mr. Whittemore noted that there are a few
comments that Pembroke would like to see added to the proposed covenant.
Dave MacLean, geologist for GEO Insight, explained that he has reviewed the covenant and indicated that he had a number of comments. He explained that he had reviewed an earlier version of the covenant and since its change this is the first time that he has had to look at the revised language. He noted that the Department of Environmental Services has a groundwater protection model ordinance in which this is based from and noted that many of the major components are contained within the covenant. Mr. MacLean explained that his comments are primarily dealing with trying to hit some of the high points in the groundwater protection ordinance from DES to ensure that they are contained within the covenant before the city proposes an aquifer protection ordinance. The site plan application requirement contains a notation for a storm water management plan noting that it does not mention groundwater quality and storm water quality explaining that the storm water management plan should be evaluating quality as well as quantity noting that there is model ordinance language which is specified within the DES model ordinance for this; the covenant in several places references regulated chemicals and in the description of the regulated chemicals references bulk onsite collection, handling manufactured use, and the disposal of regulated chemicals noting that he feels that the word “disposal” should be taken out; the covenant mentions the process storage recycling of hazardous materials noting that, if possible, he would like to see this wording removed as well; a number of prohibitive uses were listed within the covenant, he explained that there are a number of additional prohibitive uses listed in the DES model ordinance noting that he is assuming that these would not be allowed by zoning regulations for the city but is not familiar with these regulations for the city with such items as: operations of a hazardous waste disposal facility, operation of a development of a solid waste landfill, or the operation of a septage lagoon he added that there is one additional one that he would like to see added to the prohibition for an onsite storage of a motor fuel tank; at the end of the covenant there is an enforcement of the covenant “these covenants shall be enforceable by CRDC and its successors and by the city” noting that he feels it would be a good idea to specify some sort of mechanism for inspection and enforcement.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to whether these points had been covered in the
testimony provided to the Planning Board or whether the requests were just
evolved since the final draft. Mr. MacLean noted them to be expansions
explaining that the covenant had changed considerably between the first and
second draft. Mayor Donovan inquired whether staff had communicated and relayed
their concerns and discussed Pembroke’s concerns. Mr. Whittemore responded that
there was limited communications explaining that with the first draft, Mr.
MacLean was able to review and comment on the covenant in which most of the
issues had been addressed and explained that when the second draft had been
brought forward, there was limited comment until this public hearing.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether Mr. MacLean could leave his suggested
additions/changes with Council for record. Mayor Donovan indicated that staff
will ensure that a copy is given back.
Three Minute Public Testimony
Niel Cannon noted that he does not see any problems with Pembroke’s suggestion
that the word “disposal” be struck. Referencing prohibitive use, Mr. Cannon
explained that one of the potential tenants would keep fuel on the lot to test
engines because they are building meters that are used in regulating engines.
He indicated that if it’s a motor fuel pump containing X amount of gallons or
more, this can be prohibitive also.
Mayor Donovan explained that state statute indicates that if a zoning amendment materially changes, then there needs to be a final public hearing. He noted his concern that the covenant had changed dramatically at some point and that there had not been another Planning Board hearing on it. He added that state law also indicates that in cities, the zoning amendment process is left up to the municipality noting that he is unsure whether this rule applies. Mayor Donovan indicated that there seemed to have been a dramatic change that was important to Pembroke and they did not have the chance to review it.
Councilor McClure inquired whether CRDC would have any problems with any of the
other recommended changes brought up. Mr. Cannon responded that he was not sure
whether he fully understood the burden of the recommended change regarding the
quality of runoff.
Mayor Donovan noted that a recessed meeting will be taking place the following
Monday and inquired whether this item could be tabled until that time.
Mr. Cannon responded that he wanted Council and the Planning Board to be
comfortable with this item.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
F. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles; Section 17-4-1, Stop Required Before Entering a Through Street; Schedule V, Stop Intersections, Old Suncook Road and Manchester Street; together with report from the Traffic Operations Committee. (2-11)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
G.
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code;
Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles;
Section 17-4-1, Stop Required Before Entering a Through Street; Schedule V, Stop
Intersections, Allison and South Street; together with report from the Traffic
Operations Committee. (2-12)
Action:
City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief
overview explaining that this area is at the south end of a designated safe
route to school walking zone indicating that by installing a stop it will
increase the visibility of the crosswalk.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
H. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 1, Government Organization; Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties; Schedule 1, Fees; Chapter 5, Public Works; small business solid waste cart program; together with report from General Services. (2-13)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview explaining that this ordinance revision will allow
Administration to implement rules and regulations and establish fees for the
collection of non-residential solid waste and recycling. He added that the
current pricing is competitive with the private sector.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
I. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 5, Public Works; Article 5-7, Solid Waste. (2-14)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
J. Resolution modifying the Blind Exemption for the City of Concord pursuant to the provisions of 72:27-a; together with report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. (2-15)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview.
Councilor McClure inquired as to what the blind exemption is prior to this proposed increase. Mr. Aspell responded that it is approximately $111,000. Councilor McClure inquired whether it is being proposed to be $120,000. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
K. Resolution modifying the Elderly Exemption for the City of Concord pursuant to the provisions of 72:27-a. (2-16)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell
provided a brief overview.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
L. Resolution authorizing the Annual Appraisal of Real Estate at Market Value per RSA 75:8-b; together with report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. (For public hearings in March & April) (2-17)
Action: City
Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this is the first
of two public hearings with the next one being held at the April Council
meeting. He added that since 2004, the city has been annually assessing
properties at market value explaining that in 2005 the number of local abatement
requests decreased forty percent also noting that the number of appeals to the
Board of Tax and Land Appeals has also decreased.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to how much is anticipated in the budget of hiring consultants that would help the city to do this. Mr. Aspell responded that there is no cost. He explained that the first year the city brought in outside help and the idea thereafter was to accomplish this in house.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the
Mayor declared the hearing closed until the April Council meeting.
M. Resolution accepting and appropriating the sum of $3,696 in unmatched grant funds from the New Hampshire Department of Justice enforcing underage drinking laws grant program; together with report from the Police Department. (2-21)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that funds will be used for compliance checks, surveillance of retail stores, park patrols, bicycle patrols, cops and shops program, and id checks at on sale establishments.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
March 12, 2007 Public Hearing Action
46. Public hearing regarding the removal of an easement across the property at 13 Rolinda Avenue, parcel 9C-1-19, together with report from the Planning Board. (11-12) (1-20) (2-59G; 2-66) (Report from the City Solicitor submitted; communication from Councilor McClure and public testimony receive in Feb) (Supplemental information from the City Planner submitted) (Public hearing continued from February 12, 2007) (Additional public testimony received)
Action: Councilor McClure moved to retain the easement on the property at 13 Rolinda Avenue. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure noted that she supports the Planning Board recommendation to retain the easement. In light of the public testimony, Councilor McClure indicated that she views the issue as a decision that the city needs to make as to whether or not it is in the best interest of the city to retain the easement. She noted that if the city wants access to the park this is an easement that currently exists and it does not make sense to let go of the easement. She added that if another access into the park is going to be considered in the future, the current decision should be to retain the easement so that there is that access.
City Manager Tom Aspell explained that at the last meeting Council had asked that staff contact the owners of South Concord Meadows to find out if they would be interested in allowing access through their property. He noted that staff has attempted to contact them but has not been able to talk to them as of yet.
Mayor Donovan inquired that if Council considers to vacate an easement against the Planning Board’s recommendation whether a majority vote is required. City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh responded that there is a law that requires a majority vote when Council is in disagreement to the Planning Board’s recommendation but indicated that he is unsure whether it would apply to this issue.
Councilor Brochu noted his concern with additional traffic in this area along with the possibility of increased crime noting he will be voting against the motion to retain the easement.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that he has spoken to Mr. Brown, the residents, and representatives of the Safe Walk Coalition and noted as the Councilor representing Ward Seven he believes that the neighborhood needs to maintain access to Russell Martin Park in one way or another. He noted that he feels that there is an opportunity to explore an alternative option that may benefit the park as well as the residents. Councilor Nyhan requested that staff try to contact the owners of South Concord Meadows to find out if the owner would be willing to discuss the option of an easement across the South Concord Meadows open field and if this is an option, encourage Mr. Brown to discuss the matter with the owners of South Concord Meadows, specifically the possibility of a private arrangement that can be made. He indicated that if there is a solution, it should be sought out.
In order to provide staff and Mr. Brown time to try to work out a solution, Councilor Nyhan moved to table this item for sixty days. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure inquired that if Council made the decision to retain the easement this evening whether there is anything preventing Council from asking staff to make contact with the South Concord Meadows owner and encouraging Mr. Brown to pursue another easement that he could bring forward to Council at a later date. City Manager Aspell responded that there isn’t anything preventing this. Councilor McClure indicated that she would prefer this route so that it remains clear that the city wants to retain access to the park. She noted that she feels that it is Mr. Brown’s obligation to pursue another easement and not the city.
Councilor Brochu noted his disagreement explaining that he feels it is the city’s obligation to pursue another easement. He further indicated that it may be hard for Mr. Brown to convince another property owner to give the city an easement.
Mayor Donovan indicated that as he understands the motion, Councilor Nyhan is asking staff to work with Mr. Brown in exploring this option.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that he was trying to communicate is whereas the city is privy to the transaction and will hold the easement, the city should at least make the initial contact with the South Concord Meadows owner and get their agreement that they are willing to pursue the option. He added that if it becomes a financial arrangement considering Mr. Brown requested the removal of the easement, he should be the one to obtain the financial information and bring forward to Council.
Mayor Donovan noted his concern with giving up an easement that the Planning Board feels strongly should be maintained. He added that he hears the ward councilor wanting to the opportunity to try and work out a solution that may be a win-win solution. Mayor Donovan indicated that he will be supporting the motion to table this item.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether the city would have to pay for the easement if it succeeds in receiving an easement through South Concord Meadows.
Councilor Coen indicated that he has walked the easement and noted that it goes directly into a wetlands area. He noted that he feels that it has no use as a traffic area and if it is developed, it is changing the character of the neighborhood.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that the easement has value and feels that if the city releases the easement, the city should receive some compensation for the loss of value. Councilor Lemieux indicated that he would like to know what the value of the easement was.
Councilor McClure requested that City Planner Doug Woodward comment on the wetlands issue in the easement.
City Planner Doug Woodward referencing an aerial photo pointed out the wetland areas within the easement. He explained that the orientation was for children on foot and bicycles and perhaps for neighborhood residents that may walk to the park as they do other parks throughout the city noting that all of the other parks also have natural areas which doesn’t make this area radically different than all the other neighborhood parks.
Councilor McClure inquired whether there are any wetland areas in the proposed alternative option. Mr. Woodward explained that on aerial photos preliminary wetland identification indicates that there are some wetlands on the South Concord Meadows site. He explained that the Little League just had a wetland survey done in this area which showed a greater extent of wetlands that had been identified ten years ago and that the tail end of the South Concord Meadows property appears to be wetter.
Councilor Nyhan referencing the Little League’s study which indicated a greater amount of wetlands on the northwest side of the park commented that this would seem to also imply logically that there is also a greater extent of wetlands on the northeast corner which would abut the Brown’s property. Councilor Nyhan inquired in regards to the design charrette which indicated a path cutting through the South Concord Meadows property noting that it seemed to have been contemplated during the design phase.
Mayor Donovan indicated that discussion has taken place regarding building pedestrian paths and wetlands and inquired whether this would be allowable. Mr. Woodward responded that it would depend on the extent of impacts explaining that some of the Conservation Commission trails pass through wetlands. He added that it depends on the minimal amount of disturbance and what the surfacing is.
There being no additional Council discussion, the motion to table this item for sixty days to explore the possibility of another alternative option passed on a voice vote.
Mayor Donovan requested that he feels that Councilor Lemieux’s request regarding the value of the easement is something that Council should receive.
City Manager Tom Aspell indicated that his understanding is that staff is to contact the owner of South Concord Meadows, get the information as to whether they would allow an easement on their property, provide this information to Mr. Brown, and explain to Mr. Brown that he needs to bring back the result of the negotiation to Council within sixty days, and that staff will also provide Council with a value to the easement.
Mayor Donovan noted that it was his understanding that the motion also included some facilitation involved on the part of the city staff as well.
City Manager Aspell indicated that he is looking for clarification noting that he sees that there will be a lot of time and city staff money going into this.
Councilor Nyhan responded that it was never his intent to monopolize staff time but rather have staff contact the current owner of South Concord Meadows informing them that the city is interested in an easement if the owner would be willing to support it. He indicated that the easement on the Brown property currently has a value to the city and proposed that whatever the value of the existing easement is, as far as the city is concerned, it would have the equivalent value to a new easement. He explained that the request of city staff is to the initial owner, let them know that we are interested, notify Mr. Brown and if he wishes to pursue this matter further he needs to then contact the current owner and work out the financial details.
Councilor Brochu questioned whether there is any way to find out what the city originally paid for the easement. Mayor Donovan responded that the city didn’t pay because it was a condition of subdivision.
Action: Councilor Nyhan indicated that there has been a lot of compelling testimony this evening strongly advocating for not reducing the land use change tax allocation formula. In light of the testimony heard this evening, Councilor Nyhan indicated that he would like to make a motion to allocate this to a 50/50 split between the general fund and the Conservation Commission.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the resolution. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan moved to amend the motion to allocate the funds to a 50/50 split between the general fund and the Conservation Commission. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Rowe inquired as to the amount of the debt payoff for the bonds. Mr. Aspell responded that because only $5 million was approved, of which only $1.2 million has been floated, this years principal and interest payments would be between $100,000 to $120,000.
Councilor Bennett noted that despite some of the negative public testimony toward the city, he wanted to state for the record that he is passionate about the city. Referencing a map of city owned property surrounding the Broken Ground area that he received for an unrelated item, he explained that the amount of land owned by the city calculates to approximately 1,650 acres in this particular area which indicates that the city has done a lot in maintaining open space throughout the city.
Mayor Donovan asked what the current balance is in the conservation acquisition fund. Finance Director Jim Howard responded that $3.8 million is available in bond issues. Mr. Aspell indicated that his recollection is that there is $932,000 available in the conservation fund. Mayor Donovan referencing the three major purchases made within the past few years inquired as to how much came from the bond versus the acquisition fund. Mr. Aspell referencing Gold Star Farm, indicated that $700,000 was from the bond and the $203,000 for the West Portsmouth Street property, adjacent to the farm, was from the conservation trust fund; Dimond Hill Farm, $500,000 was from the bond and $169,000 from the conservation fund; Rossview Farm, $300,000 from the conservation trust fund.
Mayor Donovan explained that what was happening before the switch to 100 percent of this money going into the conservation acquisition fund was that twenty five percent went into the acquisition fund and seventy five percent went into the general fund. He further explained that the seventy five percent accumulated to the surplus each year when the city closed out its books on June 30th. Council could then reallocate the surplus to various funds within the city including the street paving fund and the economic development fund. He clarified that in fact, the land use change tax prior to the switch to 100 percent was in reality all being used to support essentially either the economic development reserve fund or the street paving restoration fund.
Mayor Donovan noted that it is unfair to accuse this City Council of not being interested in preserving open space adding that if Council had not unanimously approved the $5 million bond issue, the three acquisitions previously mentioned would not have occurred because the Conservation Commission would not have been able to purchase with just the conservation acquisition fund. He noted that he takes offense to those who suggest that the vote on this item, any way, signals a disinterest in conservation. Mayor Donovan noted his support of the amendment to the motion.
Councilor Rowe inquired whether it would be proper to move to amend the motion to include a 50/50 split after the bond issues are paid. Mayor Donovan indicated that it is his understanding that the city cannot require the Conservation Commission to use the conservation fund to pay the bonds and that it would have to be a voluntary contribution on their part. Councilor Rowe questioned how the city can receive the bond payments taken off the top and then have a 50/50 split. Mr. Aspell responded that annually it would need to be determined what the annual bond payment would be then the first dollars that would be collected would go to that amount and everything subsequent would be split 50/50 from there. He explained that eventually when the full bond has been extended it is very likely it won’t come to anywhere close to collect enough of that money every year to make those bond payments.
Councilor Rowe noted that he feels the city should take the new money received from the current use penalties to pay off what was already borrowed.
Councilor Blanchard questioned whether this amendment would be a one time budget cycle and then revert back pending further action. Mr. Aspell responded that this would remain in place until Council took another vote. Councilor Blanchard noted her concern that, if approved, Council would never go back to the 100 percent.
Councilor Coen inquired whether it was the Conservation Commission’s recommendation to do the 50/50 split. Mr. Aspell responded that it was the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee that made the recommendation and not the Conservation Commission.
Councilor Lemieux referenced the last page of the City Assessor’s memo from last month showing the numbers given for 2004, 2005 and 2006 and indicated that it appears that the balance currently in the fund is equivalent to all of 2005 and 2006 and half of 2004. He questioned why the city is floating bonds when there is almost $1 million in the conservation fund. Mr. Aspell explained that the idea was to provide two sources of funding available to the Conservation Commission one was ready dollars easily accessible for quick notice to take advantage of certain projects; those funds could also be used for surveying and legal costs. He further explained that subsequent to this, Council passed a $5 million bond to purchase large parcels.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether this type of arrangement is unique in the city budget or whether there are other functions that have this ready reserve fund and the ability to also bond for. Mr. Aspell responded that every other bond would come back to Council for every action. Mayor Donovan added that every conservation acquisition that the commission wants to make still comes before Council for approval. Councilor Lemieux noted that he is unsure whether it was clear when Council approved the bond that there was this much of a balance available.
Following additional Council discussion, Councilor McClure explained that she voted in the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee for the 50/50 split and now regrets her vote indicating that she was led to believe that the Conservation Commission supported this readjustment of the land use change tax funds. She indicated that it is important to be clear that the Conservation Commission members speaking with city staff at the time did not make a decision to support the 50/50 split and that they were discussing in generalities the issues facing the city with the current budget year. Councilor McClure indicated that it was clear from the priority statement circulated by the City Manager that the only way that the city has made any progress on open space protection in the last two to three years is because the city has committed funds so that the commission can go out and negotiate with landowners, spend money on appraisals and surveys, and proceed in good faith that they will be able to follow through on those actions. Referencing the land use change tax, she pointed out that the fact sheet Council has received is a little misleading because the fund only had two years of that 100 percent allocation. Councilor McClure indicated that she does not support the 50/50 split or the 100 percent away from conservation fund.
Councilor Rogers noted that she will be reluctantly voting to support the 50/50 split in the idea that she would rather have something than nothing.
The amendment to allocate the funds to a 50/50 split between the general fund and the Conservation Commission passed 12-2 on a roll call vote with Councilors Rogers, Rowe, St. Hilaire, Stetson, Bennett, Black, Bouley, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux and Nyhan voting yes. Councilors Blanchard and McClure voted no.
The motion, as amended, passed on a voice vote.
48. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV, Zoning Code; Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance; Article 28-2, Zoning Districts and Allowable Uses; Article 28-4, Development Design Standards; and Article 28-5, Supplemental Standards, Mandatory Cluster. (12-21) (1-11) (2-10)
Action: Councilor Coen moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouley reminded Council that public testimony was given with suggestions of minor changes and inquired as to what should be done regarding these. Mr. Aspell asked that Council pass the ordinance before them this evening and request that the suggested changes be referred and reviewed by the Planning Board.
Councilor Bouley moved to amend the motion, approving the resolution and referring the suggestions to the Planning Board for review and consideration. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor McClure inquired whether the amendment would mean that the ordinance would come back to Council. Mayor Donovan responded that it is his understanding that if the Planning Board found merit to the suggestions they would come back as a separate amendment to the zoning ordinance.
The motion, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Blanchard indicated that she will be voting against ordinance explaining that it came to her attention that a constituent had to pay $400 in impact fees for the addition of a sunroom. She indicated that she had spoken to the City Manager to inquire whether an amendment could be made to the ordinance to exclude additions to single family homes and was told that when the impact fee ordinance was adopted that it had to include so as not to be discriminating. Councilor Blanchard noted that if no exceptions can be made to this ordinance she will not be voting in support of it.
The motion passed 10-4 on a show of hands voice.
Action: Councilor McClure move to table this item until the March 19th recessed Council meeting so that staff can work on the loophole issue and the additional concerns that Pembroke had. The motion was duly seconded.
City Manager Aspell pointed out that the Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend that Council amend the zoning ordinance noting that a copy of the ordinance, together with the amended and agreed upon covenant, was transmitted to CRDC, James Raymond, and the Town of Pembroke.
The motion to table this item passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved
approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Rogers moved to amend the rules to continue the meeting to finish the action items on the agenda. The motion was duly seconded and passed with the required 2/3 vote.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved
approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved
approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bennett noted his concerns with businesses that do not have a lot of area around their businesses for either dumpsters or carts. Referencing South Street Market, Councilor Bennett explained that this business is bordered by sidewalks on both sides of the building indicating that staff has talked to the owner about this issue on several occasions and concluded that there is really no place for a dumpster. He noted that he is unsure whether there will be enough room for the carts either because they may be in the way of people trying to negotiate the sidewalks. He inquired whether exceptions can be made for some of these businesses. Mr. Aspell responded that a ninety five gallon cart should not pose a problem.
There being no further discussion, the motion passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved
approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether there has been any change since last year in regards to any financial requirements or whether being blind is the criteria for the exemption. Kathy Temchak, Assessor, responded that being blind is the only criteria needed for the exemption.
For clarification, Councilor McClure inquired whether this item is proposing changing the exemption from $112,000 to $120,000. Ms. Temchak responded that had been done last year. Councilor McClure inquired what is then being proposed. Mayor Donovan explained that it is not known until it is determined as to how the valuation changes and then it automatically adjusts.
Councilor McClure noted that because this is not based on need, she does not support these exemptions because they end up creating a burden to other taxpayers who then cannot afford to pay their taxes.
Councilor Lemieux questioned whether anything could be done to change this or whether state law prohibits adding a financial requirement. Mayor Donovan explained that it cannot be a requirement.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether it is possible to cap the exemption from growing each year. Mayor Donovan indicated that to be correct explaining that if Council votes against this resolution it would cap the amount.
Councilor Bennett noted that he doesn’t feel that this exemption is a hardship on other taxpayers because it only adds approximately $1.20 on everyone’s tax rate.
Councilor Coen questioned as to how many individuals receive this exemption. Mayor Donovan indicated that it is just forty three individuals.
Councilor St. Hilaire noted that he feels that forty three is not a high number and that they are limited to the type of work that they can do.
Councilor McClure indicated that the city’s exemption is twice the amount of the other highest town in the state.
City Manager Aspell clarified that if Council votes against this it will leave it at the number that was determined this past year. He explained that if values go down, the individuals will get a greater deduction and if values go up they will get less.
Following additional Council discussion, Councilor Brochu moved the question. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously on a roll call vote with Councilors Rogers, Rowe, St. Hilaire, Stetson, Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouley, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux, McClure and Nyhan voting yes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Public hearing on this item continued at the April Council meeting.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Adjournment
The time being, 11:21 p.m., Councilor Bennett moved to recess the meeting until Monday, March 19, 2007. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk