| November 13, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes |
|
City Council Meeting
Minutes
November 13, 2007
Non public session at 10:00 p.m. in accordance
with RSA 91-A: 3, II (a) to discuss the
compensation of the City Manager followed by a non-public session in accordance
with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss
property acquisition/contract negotiations,
East Street Property in Penacook; followed by non-public session in accordance
with RSA 91-A: 2 I. (c) to discuss pending litigation.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval of the October 9, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
6. Resolution honoring and memorializing Leonard “Red” Brochu for his dedication and contributions to the City of Concord. (10-30)
Action: Resolution to be presented at the December Council meeting.
7. Mayor Pro Tem Bouley presented a resolution in recognition of the services of Richard Mason. (10-31)
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved to accept the canvass of the votes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
- Consent Agenda Items -
Note: Items listed as pulled from the consent agenda will be discussed at the end of the meeting following unfinished business.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved to approve the consent agenda, as amended, with item 41 removed for discussion at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to the Parking Committee
Referral to the Planning Board and Code Administration
Referral to the Traffic Operations Committee
Items Tabled for a December 10, 2007 Public Hearing
From the City Manager
Consent Reports
35. Report from the City Engineer requesting that the City Manager be authorized to submit an application to the NH Department of Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for up to $1,250,000 in Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) Grant Program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds for storm water mitigation projects.
Consent Resolutions
36. Resolution proclaiming December 2007 as Capital Region Food Program Month. (Presentation in December)
37. Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit an application to the NH Department of Justice Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program seeking additional funding in the amount of $5,000; together with report from the Police Department.
38. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application to the United States Department of Justice, US Attorney for the District of New Hampshire, for up to $100,000, in Street Sweeper Grant funds for enforcement activities; together with report from the Police Department.
39. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration in the amount of $650,000 in accordance with FY08, CIP #71 – Runway Protection Zones Runways 17/35 and 12/30 property acquisitions; together with report from the Business Development Coordinator.
40. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to issue licenses to Capital Commons LLC and Red River Theatres for installation of way finding signage within the Capital Commons Municipal Parking Garage; together with report from the Assistant for Special Projects.
41. Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit an application to the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company for the purpose of receiving a 2008 Polaris Ranger 6x6 utility vehicle through its operation ranger program in order to enhance emergency incident response; together with a report from the Acting Fire Chief. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Werner)
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
42. Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit an application to the Wal-Mart Community Grant Program to enhance fire protection activities; together with a report from the acting Fire Chief.
**End of Consent Agenda**
A. 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, Shaker Road at Cemetery Street; together with report from the Traffic Operations Committee. (8-8) (9-10) (10-12) (Public testimony received) (Supplemental report from the City Engineer regarding improvements to the intersection of Mountain Road/Shaker Road/Cemetery Street following the neighborhood meeting with residents and concerned citizens) (Additional public testimony received)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell indicated that additional testimony has been submitted to Council from Donald Bailey, Sandra Wescott, Charles Dore, Catherine Yeager, and James and Mary Blaisdell. Mr. Aspell provided a brief overview.
City Engineer Ed Roberge provided an overview of the staff report explaining that it contains the history, recent actions, brief summary of the public meeting, the result exercised in 2002 as well as the recent review of the intersection in 2007. He explained that approximately seventy five residents attended an October 3rd public meeting which resulted in the four options listed within the report: 1) leave the improvements that were constructed in place and amend the ordinance adding the stop sign; 2) revert back to the original intersection alignment; 3) consider an option to allow Shaker Road one-way northbound; 4) realign the intersection, the “J” plan, taking the main Shaker Road travel way and bringing it into Mountain Road. Mr. Roberge explained that another option was brought forward by a resident which is similar to the existing condition urbanizing it to maximize capacity so that there is a dedicated right turn lane and left turn lane out of Cemetery Street and a dedicated right turn lane from Shaker Road. He noted that this may be a future solution but doesn’t feel that traffic demands this right now.
Councilor Coen, referencing option four, inquired whether there would be a net loss or gain or whether the park would remain the same size. Mr. Roberge responded that it would be a net gain of approximately 2,100 square feet. Mr. Roberge added that he had met with the East Concord Garden Club and noted that they support what is currently there and would be in the position to work with the city on whatever decision the Council makes.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley declared the public hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Brenda Mikelson, Bainbridge Drive, spoke in opposition of the change noting her concern with the traffic volume and safety issues at this intersection. She added her concerns with emergency vehicles being able to make the turn. Ms. Mikelson urged Council to consider other options before this measure is put into place.
Councilor Coen inquired as to which option Ms. Mikelson would prefer. Ms. Mikelson indicated that she preferred option two with some type of option to control speed.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to how far Ms. Mikelson lived from this intersection. Ms. Mikelson responded that she lives approximately ¾ of a mile from the intersection.
Susanna Whitcher, Bainbridge Drive, spoke in opposition to the change. She indicated that she had attended the neighborhood meeting in which staff had felt strongly about and were proposing the change that has been made. She pointed out that staff had indicated that they had the residents safety in mind adding that staff had indicated that with the previous configuration, there had been no history of accidents and that this new configuration has not been tested and that staff was unable to tell residents how this configuration will be during the winter driving conditions. Ms. Whitcher further noted her concerns with safety and the ingress and egress of large emergency vehicles.
David Holden, North Main Street, requested that Council consider recording all meetings held in the future pointing out that the neighborhood meeting held at Broken Ground had not been recorded. He noted that he feels that since it is a public meeting he feels that meetings should be recorded, by video or audio, so that the city and the public is represented properly. Mr. Holden pointed out that staff had indicated that they were changing danger points in which staff offered hypotheticals but when the residents requested to offer these also, they were denied. He noted that it had been pointed out that speed had been a problem and pointed out that it still remains a problem in this area. Mr. Holden concluded by indicating that he would like to see the slip road removed adding square footage to Pecker Park.
Councilor McClure inquired as to where Mr. Holden resided. Mr. Holden responded that he is a property taxpayer in Concord and lives in Bow traveling to Shaker Road School on a daily basis.
Councilor Shurtleff noted that the one problem that he has with the idea of eliminating Cemetery Street from Shaker to Mountain Road is making the turn off of Shaker Road to go back onto Mountain Road noting that he feels that this would be a difficult turn. Mr. Holden indicated that the turn has not been a problem for years and had not been a problem until 2002 when a few neighbors had complained about it. Mr. Holden noted that there are no accident records and the density of traffic coming off of Cemetery Street is very small.
Councilor Blanchard inquired why anyone coming south on Shaker Road wanting to travel north on Mountain Road head down to the “v” instead of turning right onto the small portion of Cemetery Street. Mr. Holden noted that at the neighborhood meeting he had suggested going through Pecker Park which is closer to the new “J” plan being suggested this evening eliminating a portion of the park but with the option to enlarge the park to the north.
Tim Osmer, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the new intersection improvements made closing off Shaker Road noting that this configuration has slowed down the traffic at this intersection. He noted that the concern with safety vehicles is a legitimate concern but indicated that there are many more difficult intersections within the city. Being three houses away from the intersection, Mr. Osmer had previously heard tires screeching from near misses and with the new configuration he has not heard any screeching tires.
Doug Hicks, owner of Shaker Road School and Shaker Road resident, spoke in opposition to the change noting his concerns with safety, the flow of traffic and speed. He noted that he feels that the current configuration is not an engineering solution or long term solution but just the closing of a road. Mr. Hicks indicated that he feels that option four is logical, will slow traffic down and may result in a long term solution. Referencing the 2002 meeting, he noted that he had no knowledge of this meeting and feels that very little individuals had known about this meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley clarified that there had not been a meeting in 2002 explaining that the late Councilor Brochu had brought forth the issue of sight distance of not being able to see to get out onto Mountain Road. He indicated that the city’s Engineering Department come back to Council with some suggestions/solutions which were never presented to Council.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to the distance of Mr. Hick’s residence from the intersection. Mr. Hicks responded that he resides ¾ of a mile from the intersection.
Mary Blaisdell, Mountain Road, spoke in favor of keeping the small extension of Shaker Road closed. She pointed out that accidents have occurred at this intersection despite what has been heard. Ms. Blaisdell noted that her main concern is the safety and speed at this intersection and pointed out that she has noticed the difference with the current configuration in place.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired as to how Ms. Blaisdell feels regarding option four. Ms. Blaisdell responded that she likes the plan currently in place noting that she has seen the difference it has made.
Councilor McClure inquired whether Ms. Blaisdell prefers the current configuration over the “J” plan because she is afraid that the speed will be faster. Ms. Blaisdell indicated that to be correct.
Michael Panebianco, Bainbridge Drive, spoke in opposition of the change. He indicated that he feels that there is no demonstrated need for a change and insufficient evidence to show that the proposed change will work to alleviate the safety concerns. He noted that he feels that the pros of increasing the park and benefiting the two or three neighbors should not be the consideration of Council and that they should be concerned with the safety and the overall need of a change to begin with.
Councilor Coen inquired as to which option Mr. Panebianco is in favor of. Mr. Panebianco responded that because he feels that there has not been a demonstrated need that any change is required it should be returned to its original state.
Frank Irvine, Mountain Road, noted that he feels that there has been a good deal of demonstration that “T” intersections are safer intersections than slip roads. He indicated that it was his understanding that there had been an approval of this change in 2002 by the Council and that for years it was known that there was going to be a change made to this intersection and that the change may mean closing that section of Shaker Road. Mr. Irvine noted that traffic has been slowed down since the change was made to the intersection.
Peter Daley, Perley Street, spoke in opposition of the change noting his concern with safety and maneuvering the turns at this intersection with a bus. He noted that he would like to hear input from the Police Department and Fire Department indicating that he feels that their input should be taken in consideration with any changes to this intersection. Mr. Daley indicated that he is in favor of the “J” plan.
Alex Vogt, Groton Drive, spoke in favor of leaving the leg of Shaker Road closed noting that the he feels that the safety of the intersection has improved. He indicated that he feels that the “J” plan may resolve some of the minor deficiencies that have been brought forth. Mr. Vogt indicated that the change has resulted in a major improvement with traffic being slowed down and with traffic being orderly.
Mike Smit, Bainbridge Drive, spoke in opposition of the current change noting that he feels less safe because of the increased traffic trying to get through the intersection. He indicated that he feels that the city has restricted the volume of traffic that can get through the intersection efficiently.
Jenifer Evans, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the changes made to the intersection. She indicated that traffic has been slowed down with the changes and pointed out that there have been two very serious accidents at this intersection. Ms. Evans noted that she is in favor of keeping the intersection as it currently is or considering the “J” plan.
Chuck Sisson, Oscar Boulevard, noted that he feels that the changes that have been made to the intersection have made the area more dangerous. He requested that Council restore the intersection to its original state for safety.
Councilor Coen inquired whether there are any other options that Mr. Sisson. Mr. Sisson responded that he would consider option four.
Gerry Drypolcher, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the discontinuance of a portion of Shaker Road. He noted that he would feel more comfortable if there was more study of the “J” turn to take away some of the concerns that individuals have for safety vehicles and buses negotiating the turn. He indicated that if the intersection stays the way it currently is staff could bring back a design that can be presented with some costs. Mr. Drypolcher indicated that concerns were presented with getting rear ended when making a turn onto Cemetery Street and pointed out that there are other intersections throughout the city, as well as other cities, in which you have to slow down to make a right hand turn also and is not unique to just this intersection. He noted that the way to move forward with this is just to give it time to work. Mr. Drypolcher noted that it was brought to the attention that residents felt that the Mr. Roberge had a recommendation from the beginning of the meeting and explained that he did because he is an engineer who understands traffic and road/intersection design. Mr. Drypolcher indicated that Mr. Roberge was straightforward by explaining that when this came before Council, it would be his job to make his recommendation from his background and would then be Council to make the final decision.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to how far away Mr. Drypolcher resides from this intersection. Mr. Drypolcher responded that he lives approximately a mile from the intersection.
Lucille Patten, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the intersection change and keeping the road closed as it currently is. She indicated that over the years traffic has increased and pointed out that there have been accidents and many misses that have occurred at this intersection. Ms. Patten noted that she feels that if there is to be an alternative to what is currently there, she believes that the “J” plan would work and be successful.
Cindy Sanborn, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the intersection change as it currently is.
Three Minute Public Testimony
Doug Hicks, Shaker Road, indicated that virtually most of the individuals that are in favor of keeping it the way it currently is do not live on Shaker Road, do not travel through the intersection and that they do not feel that they are not as concerned about the maneuverability of emergency vehicles.
Frank Irvine, Mountain Road, noted his agreement with Mr. Hicks that he does not travel through the intersection but indicated that he observes many vehicles including emergency vehicles maneuvering the intersection since the change was made with no difficulty getting through.
Tim Osmer, Mountain Road, indicated that there has been some interest expressed with the “J” intersection and noted that there may be some clarification needed on this and added that he feels that individuals may be in favor of this as long as it is still a ninety degree intersection to Mountain Road. He indicated that it has been brought forward that there is a lack of data that this is an unsafe intersection but noted that he feels that there has been data and that the Engineering Department has talked about the reduction of conflict points. Mr. Osmer explained that the whole intent of this change was to calm traffic and feels that anyone that has observed the intersection will agree that vehicles are slowing down, therefore calming the traffic.
For the public record, public testimony cards in support of keeping the portion of Shaker Road closed were received from: Beverly Osmer of Mountain Road, James Blaisdell of Mountain Road, John Sanborn of Mountain Road, Frances Irvine of Mountain Road, and Esther and William Murray of Mountain Road. A public testimony card was received from Theresa Capozzi of Shaker Road but did not indicate support or opposition.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed.
B. Report from the Engineering Services Division regarding the status of CIP #24 Exit 16/Mountain Road/Shawmut Street Intersection Improvement Project. (10-49)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the purpose of this item is to look at three options: do nothing option; signalization option; and a roundabout option. He indicated that this is not an appropriating resolution it is to get to the point where Council makes a decision on which direction they would like to move forward with, provide Administration with that input and direction for the development of the new capital budget.
City Engineer Ed Roberge provided a detailed overview of his report to Council. Referencing the do nothing option, he noted that staff feels that with the increased traffic, the history of accident occurrences at this intersection and this being a key entrance point into the East Concord village that this would not be the best option. Mr. Roberge further provided a history of this item explaining that this project location had a considerable public participation effort and the way that this stands this evening is the result of the last Council meeting action in early 2007. He added that the cost for the roundabout option is approximately $390,000 and the cost for the traffic signalization option is approximately $220,000 and pointed out that both intersection improvement options provide safety, particularly to the side street opportunities. Referencing the roundabout option, Mr. Roberge explained that it offers good access to some of the abutting properties with very limited impact to any of the private properties by shifting the intersection to the west. He added that as a result of the public participation process, with the roundabout shifted further to the west, it would shift the East Side Drive approach to the north and get the Eastman Street shelf extended to the north a little bit, a little flatter and improve the sight distance.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Larry Yearke, Putney Avenue, noted his concern with the amount of traffic and the speed of traffic in this area. He spoke in support of the roundabout option noting that he feels that it would slow the traffic and if designed correctly it will work and would be a better solution than signalization.
Frank Irvine, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the roundabout option.
Doug Hicks, Shaker Road, noted his concern with nothing being done to this dangerous intersection until 2009. He indicated that the intersection had been designed for signalization but was never finished and tried in its finished state. Mr. Hicks noted his confusion with the costs explaining that this is a fairly new intersection and everything should be in place and was engineered for signalization. He further noted his concern with the roundabout being located on state property inquiring whether this will result in a lengthy process and whether the state would allow this.
Susanne Smith Meyer, Shawmut Street, noted that she feels that now is the opportunity to make something right and feels that the community has come out in many levels to let the Council know that the best alternative for this intersection is a roundabout. She indicated that she feels that the roundabout addresses the concerns of the community in the most efficient way. She added that the roundabout option also addresses the pedestrian safety issues, aesthetics, and is one of the only solutions that addresses the vehicular speed. Ms. Smith Meyer pointed out that this option also addresses the conflicts with the gas station. Referencing the additional expense of the roundabout, she noted that she feels that the cost is warranted because it does address all the concerns and will be viable and efficient long term. In closing, she asked that Council take the recommendations of the staff, the concerns of the community and the overwhelming support in the community for the roundabout option.
Chris Miller, Portsmouth Street, spoke in support of the roundabout option. He indicated that signalization at this intersection is inconsistent with the nature of the East Concord community and also inconsistent with the nature of the problem that exists here.
Mark Ciborowski, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the roundabout option. He made six points regarding this intersection: he does not feel that a traffic light will work or solve the problem at this intersection due to the stacking and queuing of traffic coming down East Side Drive during the rush hours; the roundabout will force the traffic to slow down; the roundabout will allow for better aesthetics such as more landscaping and green areas; the additional cost of the roundabout is money well spent if this is a solution that addresses the needs and issues; the roundabout is the staff recommendation; seventy percent of the residents strongly voiced their preference for the roundabout option.
Jerry Drypolcher, Mountain Road, spoke in support of the roundabout option noting that he concurs to the previous testimonies. He added that many other communities similar to Concord have installed roundabouts pointing out that Keene has installed a second roundabout which he feels is a testament to the fact that the first one was successful enough to move forward with a second one.
Marianne Dudek, Oak Hill Road, noted her agreement with most of the public testimony held this evening with the exception that she feels that the safety issue needs to be addressed sooner. She indicated that traffic signals can be completed much sooner and can be used intermittently or time adjusted if needed. She noted her support of the traffic signalization option.
James Blaisdell, Mountain Road, noted that at a previous meeting someone had indicated that more than one-third of the traffic during the busiest times of the day comes from the state office building. He indicated that it was his understanding that I-393 was built to accommodate these workers and inquired if there was a way to find out why the state employees choose to travel through East Concord instead of using I-393.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley indicated that he did speak to state offices and it was concluded that there isn’t really any good reason other than it’s perceived as a shorter route.
Councilor Nyhan inquired as to which option Mr. Blaisdell prefers. Mr. Blaisdell responded that he prefers the roundabout but his concern with this option is the safety of bicyclists and children.
Sharon Silva, East Side Drive, spoke in support of the roundabout option noting the traffic calming and aesthetically effect that a roundabout may have. She noted her concern with traffic stacking with signalization and indicated that she would feel more comfortable with pedestrians walking through the intersection with the roundabout rather than traffic lights. Ms. Silva indicated that a roundabout may deter state employees from traveling this intersection and taking I-393 instead.
Tim Osmer, Mountain Road, indicated that if there is enough space to install a roundabout that will work then he is in support of the roundabout option.
Three Minute Public Testimony
Frank Irvine, Mountain Road, indicated that it had been suggested to install a traffic signal in the interim and noted that he feels that installing a traffic signal is worse than doing nothing because he feels that it will make the intersection less safe and more dangerous than it currently is.
Larry Yearke, Putney Avenue, spoke in regards to pedestrian safety pointing out that with a roundabout traffic will only being travel one-way and will be a shorter distance to cross over and with a signal pedestrians will have to look several ways before crossing and it will a longer distance to cross.
For the public record, public testimony cards in support of the roundabout option were received from: Alex Vogt of Groton Drive, Kyle Barker of Kearsage Street, Beverly Osmer of Mountain Road, Frances Irvine of Mountain Road, Carroll Blake of Shawmut Street. A public testimony card was received from William Murray of Mountain Road but did not indicate support or opposition.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed.
C. Resolution authorizing the City Administration to enter into a purchase and sales/development agreement with Mark Carrier Construction, Inc. for redevelopment of “Scandia Hall” located at 14 Knight Street, Concord; together with report from City Administration. (10-37G; 10-44) (Public hearing tabled for one month at the October 2007 Council meeting) (Supplemental report submitted)
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Bouley declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Helmut Koch, Knight Street, provided a brief history of the use of Scandia Hall over the years noting that in 1994 the city had decided that the building was not up to code and that safety hazards existed leaving the building vacant and abandoned for thirteen years. He noted that neighbors have taken care of most of the outdoor maintenance such as mowing the grass and raking the leaves over the years. Mr. Koch indicated that he would like to see the building used for city uses and stay part of city because of its historical value. He noted that development into condominiums has some really good opportunities for the building to renovate it and to hopefully maintain the historical value and façade of the building. He added that he is not opposed to the proposed project but has some major concerns that will hopefully be resolved these include: parking; drainage; snow removal; set back considerations; lead paint and asbestos; landscaping; buffer area considerations; access plan; exterior light plan; management of facility. Mr. Koch urged Council to approve the resolution on a conditional basis that the items referred to are taken into consideration and to include the neighborhood as part of the decision making process in determining how some of these issues are going to be handled.
Chris Demers, Hutchins Street, noted that if the building cannot be used for municipal uses then he feels that the next best option would be for using it residential use. He indicated that it is important that abutters are involved with the process from start to finish adding that they had the opportunity to meet with the developer and architect and both were very willing to meet with abutters to discuss issues.
Al Little, Hutchins Street, indicated that he wants the abutters to be involved in the entire process. He noted his concerns with drainage, snow removal; parking; buffer zone; and protection of the neighborhood from paint and asbestos removal.
Leo and Sheila Raymond, Quaker Street, noted the same concerns brought up by the previous testimonies. Ms. Raymond noted that to protect the properties of the abutters and the value of these properties they are not objective to something going in that is feasible and economical.
Gertrude Wheeler, Kent Street, noted that she feels that this is a good idea explaining that there are not a lot of housing similar to this in the community and feels that buildings similar to this that are an integral part of the community should be used for such residential uses.
Mark Carrier and John Jordan introduced themselves to the Council.
Councilor McClure indicated that Council did not receive a site plan noting that she previously has seen one. Referencing the concerns made regarding the parking, she noted that everybody had the chance to look at the site plan; they would have a better concept of how little space there is on this lot. She inquired as to the types of ideas about alternatives that do not require variances that will allow as much parking as should be required. Assistant for Special Project Matt Walsh stated that the way that the current zoning ordinance and site plan regulations are written there is not a way that he is aware of to comply with all of these regulations and get the required number of parking spaces that must be had for the property.
Councilor McClure inquired whether there was any other city land within the area or a possibility of working with Second Start to provide some night time parking. Mr. Walsh responded that he hasn’t pursued the Second Start option and indicated that the other city owned property in the area is Garrison Park and this is likely not an option explaining that if it has certain federal dollars into this park it would automatically preclude this. Mr. Walsh explained that they are trying to keep the units as marketable as possible and that having parking on the site helps with this. He explained that all that is being asked of this evening is the permission of the Council to enter into a conditional purchase and sales agreement with Mr. Carrier noting that the agreement will be conditional upon getting Zoning and Planning Board approvals as well as bank financing before the city conveys the property to him. Mr. Walsh added that he expects to meet with the abutters over the next several months.
Councilor Blanchard noted her concern with abutters not notified of this item. Mr. Walsh explained that abutters are normally notified when going through a permitting process. He further explained that this is the very start of this process and will ensure that abutters are notified throughout the process.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed.
D. Resolution appropriating the sum of $39,788 in Edward F. Byrne Grant program funds from the State of New Hampshire Department of Justice for the replacement of a police officer assigned to the New Hampshire Drug Task Force; together with report from the Police Department. (10-9)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the purpose of this item is for funding of an entry level police officer replacing an experienced police officer who will not be readily available to the Concord Police Department during the officer’s assignment to the Drug Task Force. He added that the match for this grant is $18,300 which is already within the Police Department budget.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed.
E. Resolution appropriating the sum of $60,000 and authorizing the transfer of $15,000 for construction of the Commercial Street Bridge over the Wattanummon Brook from State Municipal Bridge Aid; CIP #21; together with a report from Engineering Services. (10-10)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that, as the city has been going through the project for the Wattanummon Brook, it has become apparent that a temporary bridge needs to be installed and that the contract cost needs to be increased by $75,000 which would include design and additional construction administration which would be funded eighty percent by the state and twenty percent by the city. He added that the city’s share would come from the Sewalls Falls design because the state has moved this project out.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the bridge should be rebuilt as opposed to installing a box culvert or pipe. City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that the bridge is red listed and qualifies for the State Municipal Bridge Aid program and is programmed for a deck replacement. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether any consideration has been given to replacing the bridge with a box culvert or a pipe questioning whether this would be less expensive than replacing the deck. Mr. Roberge explained that the sub-structure is in fairly good shape and that the deck is in disrepair. He indicated that staff felt this was more economical to look at a deck replacement as opposed to a larger box culvert. Mr. Roberge added that leaving the super-structure in place would have less environmental impact.
Councilor Coen inquired as to what red listed refers to. Mr. Roberge responded that it means that it has structural deficiencies and certain weight ladings, limited in the amount of weight that can cross over a bridge. He explained that the list enables the state to do more frequent inspections and ongoing maintenance.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed.
F. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate a transfer of rights in property between the City and Unitil Energy Systems (UES); together with report from the City Manager. (10-11)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that two years ago City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate with Unitil for the exchange of property and what has happened since then is that the Society for the Protection of NH Forests has agreed to accept a conservation easement on Unitil land on the Merrimack River which is being conveyed to the city and added that the city would exchange property in East Concord. Mr. Aspell indicated that the plan is to convey the deed to the Curtisville Road to Unitil and Unitil can convey back the conservation easement to the property explaining that the deed to the conservation easement for this property will include terms and conditions to allow Unitil to construct utility infrastructure on this site and constructing sub stations on this site in the future to provide energy needs for East Concord for the next fifty years.
Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that he believes that since the time that Council authorized to enter into an agreement with Unitil the Planning Board may have approved a housing development within this area and inquired as to where this is located on the map. City Planner Doug Woodward pointed out the location on the map explaining that an agreement has already been structured with Unitil in which if they receive final approval for this, Unitil will acquire two of the future lots to allow a connection between a sub station and a distribution line that would go down to the sub station just of Loudon Road adjacent to Alton Woods.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether the tree buffer will remain in place if Unitil is to develop a sub station so that the new development and the development on the other side won’t be seeing the sub station. Mr. Woodward responded that the Conservation Commission worked out some standards with Unitil explaining that there is a perimeter buffer and certain areas that are wetlands. He added that there was some language about keeping the sites out of the public view on I-393, Portsmouth Street, and North Curtisville Road. Mr. Woodward noted that the commission will still retain trail rights and public access rights.
Councilor McClure inquired as to the size of the sub station and the size of the buffer. Mr. Woodward responded that the sites are approximately four acres. Councilor McClure inquired whether there are specific guidelines as to where the four acres will be within the deed restrictions. Mr. Woodward explained that there are definitive items such as the perimeter buffer, wetlands studies and wetlands buffers identified within a hundred feet. He added that there were some dimensions south of Curtisville Road north of Portsmouth Street and there is also a provision that the Conservation Commission would review and approve a sub station location. Councilor McClure inquired as to why 132 acres is needed and whether there was anything contained within the negotiation as to where the sub station is going to be located and possibly dedicating the rest of the land to conservation. Mr. Woodward responded that the city land is 132 acres and Unitil’s land is 139 acres explaining that the sizes of the land had to be relatively similar. He noted that this is a cash free transfer and they were not looking to develop the land in its entirety but gives them the flexibility within the constraints of the open space as far as wetlands, steep slopes and abutters.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Tim Britain, representing Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., introduced John Bonazeli, Manager of Energy Systems. Mr. Britain explained that the conservation easement that would be conveyed to the city specifically identifies the areas that would be subject to potential sub station development. He indicated that the first is an area approximately between 400 feet and 1,800 feet from the southerly side of Curtisville Road as measured along the easterly side of the PSNH right of way; the second site is measured along the westerly side of the PSNH right of way measured approximately 1,000 feet to 1,600 feet from Portsmouth Street. Mr. Britain added that the third aspect of the utility rights that Unitil would have would be to establish a transmission line corridor to the east of the existing right of way approximately 120 feet and would run the length of the city’s property and would also go across Whispering Heights which is subject to a pending application before the Planning Board and would continue along other city land to the south going out to the road and I-393.
Referencing the wetland area on the map, Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that that it contains a lot of beavers and inquired as to what affect this will have on this area. Mr. Britain responded that the sub station sites are only potential at this time and are sites that might not be developed for another five to ten years explaining that there is still quite a bit of study that needs to occur before any firm development plans are made and is part of the restrictions that will be in the conservation easement that all of the wetland areas will in fact be mapped.
As far as how the construction would affect the beaver pond, Mr. Bonazeli explained that they would be working with the Conservation Commission with marking the wetlands, staying out of the wetlands, and if anything needs to be done within the wetlands they would work with the commission as far as the conditions for this.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether it would pose a problem if the Conservation Commission indicates that they want the site moved further away from this area. Mr. Bonazeli responded that the two sites are at this time only potential sites and have not looked at any details beyond this. He reiterated that they will be working with the Conservation Commission as far as the site of the sub station location. Mr. Britain added that the conservation easement specifically states that the final site is subject to Conservation Commission approval.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed.
Adjournment
The time being 10:40 p.m., Councilor Lemieux moved to enter into non public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (a) to discuss the compensation of the City Manager followed by a non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss property acquisition/contract negotiations, East Street Property in Penacook; followed by non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 2 I. (c) to discuss pending litigation. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouley, Coen, Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Rowe, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, and Werner voting yes. Councilor Stetson voted no.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk