NOTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2014 RYE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present: Selectmen Mills, Musselman and Jenness. Also present: Town Administrator Michael Magnant, Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie,
Interim Fire Chief Thomas Lambert, Police Chief Kevin Walsh.
Present from the Conservation Commission: Mike Garvan, Lawton Struble, Jaci Grote, Sally King, Jim Raynes. Also present: Tracy Degnan, Rockingham County Conservation District.
Present from Wallis Rd. Properties LLC: Ed Hayes, John O’Neill, Attorney Tim Phoenix.
Present from Tighe & Bond: Gregg Mikolaities, Jason Plourde.
Persons present from the public included: Cecilia Azzi, Victor Azzi, John Bellino, Mae Bradshaw, Bob Consentino, Sharon Consentino, Peter Crawford, Joe Cummins, Mark Epply, Keith Evelund, Tom Farrelly, Otto Grote, Kathy Hodson, Jane Holway, Ray Jarvis, Lindsey Josephs, Mel Low, Jeanne Moynahan, Ned Paul, John Riley, Judy Scott, Sam Winebaum, Phil Winslow.
Summary
3.
CIP Plan issues were
discussed. The Rye Water District and
Village Districts would remain in the plan, but be broken out. Selectman Musselman expressed concern that
debt with the Town Hall project would reach the previous high, even before
considering other large projects slotted for 2016 and 2017. Click here
for RCL Budget Presentation pointing this out.
Selectman Musselman pushed the CIP Committee to winnow the projects down
from a “wish list” to a prioritized list based on affordability and whether the
project fits into the Town’s financing structure. Click here
for RCL survey pointing out resident interest in such prioritization.
Editor’s
note: For ease in finding particular
sections using the archived video and audio on the Town website, the elapsed
time is indicated. Use the slider and
the elapsed time indicated at the bottom of the video window to fast forward to
the desired section. Videos on the Town website may currently be accessed at
www.town.rye.nh.us by clicking on
“Town Hall Streaming” at the bottom left of the screen. Follow the link for “Town Hall Live
Streaming,” then find the meeting by date under “Previous.”
The video starts
at 6:33:36 p.m. (0:00 elapsed). The
video was off from 7:40:20 p.m. to 7:45:06 p.m. during a recess. The elapsed time does not increase during the
recess.
Tax rate and other announcements (0:67 elapsed)
After
announcing two closures (now in the past), Selectman Musselman announced that
the tax rates had recently been set (Editor’s
note: The figures in italics were not
announced, but are the comparable rates for 2013, the computed percentage
change from 2013 to 2014, and the computed total of the two school taxes. The School District retains all of both
school taxes):
2014 2013 Percentage change
Local School $4.20 $4.29 -2.1
State School $2.53 $2.44 +3.7
Total School $6.73 $6.73 no change
Town $3.68 $3.12 +17.9
County $1.14 $1.12 +1.8
Total $11.55 $10.97 +5.3
Jenness Beach $.24 $.23 +4.3
Rye Beach $.41 $.30 +36.7
Rye Water
Dist. $.54 $.62 -13.0
The Rye Holiday Parade on December 7 at 1:00 p.m. was also announced.
Consent Agenda and Huff’n for Stuff’n Turkey Trot (2:54
elapsed)
Items A, B and C, relating to parking issues and the Conservation Commission hearing, were taken off of the Consent Agenda, to be addressed together with the overall agenda items on the related topics.
Item D, the Turkey Trot, and the route change associated therewith, was then discussed by Police Chief Kevin Walsh. All were in favor of approving that.
Item E, the only one remaining on the Consent Agenda, the Holiday Parade was then unanimously approved.
Minutes (4:47 elapsed)
The three non-public sessions on October 23, 2014 were unanimously approved without changes. The minutes of the October 27, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved with minor changes. The minutes of the non-public session on October 27, 2014 were unanimously approved without changes.
Public hearing on Conservation
Acquisition, former Rand Lumber parcel (7:26 elapsed)
Editor’s note: This acquisition is another one of the steps
involving the former Rand Lumber property of approximately 90 acres. Wallis Road Properties LLC purchased the
property for $1.15 million on April 17, 2013 following a sealed bid auction
necessitated by financial issues with the Rand family. On August 12, 2014, the Planning Board
approved a 20 unit Retirement Community Development (“RCD”) on 17.22 acres of
the front portion of the property adjacent to Wallis Rd. Of the 17.22 acres, 11.06 acres are
predominantly wetlands. The Conservation
Commission, at its July 17, 2014 meeting voted to accept the donation of an
easement on this portion. Thus, the 20
clustered luxury condominiums are concentrated on approximately 6 acres. See Plan D-38307, Rockingham County Registry
of Deeds, available at http://www.nhdeeds.com. The back portion of the property, comprising
approximately 73 acres, is the subject of this hearing. The purchase of that property by the Town,
acting through the Conservation Commission, is being considered for $1.25
million. These funds would come from the
$3 million conservation bond approved by voters in March 2014, 1001-656 (after
recount), only 6 votes more than the required 60 percent.
In connection with a policy
established by the Selectmen on January 6, 2014, an appraisal and a number of
other documents were included in a package of information assembled in
connection with the potential acquisition.
This document is commonly referred to as the “a to p document” based on
the lettered paragraphs of the January 6 policy. For links to a number of these documents see http://www.ryecivicleague.org/?p=2023. In particular, the appraisal, performed for
the developer, asserts that 16 lots, at a value of $400,000 could be developed,
and it provides a calculation of the net present value, after deducting costs
and taking into account developer profit and the time value of money, of $2.162
million. The appraisal includes a plan
showing where the 16 lots could be located.
See http://ryecivicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/RandLotLayout.pdf. That layout shows that the front part of the
parcel to be purchased, excluding the portion devoted to the RCD, is almost
entirely wetlands. There is a section of
uplands adjacent to Liberty Common extending over towards homes located on
Alehson St. According to the Town’s tax
map, the former Rand parcel does not contain any frontage on Alehson St.,
however it appears that Liberty Common dead ends at, or close to, the property
line of the former Rand Lumber property.
Selectman Musselman announced that this would be the first acquisition under the process established the prior January. An extensive book had been put together of information on the property, he asserted. A site walk involving the Board of Selectmen, the Conservation Commission, and the public has been conducted within the past two weeks. The purpose of the meeting today is for the Conservation Commission to conduct its formal public hearing, during which the Board of Selectmen would recess its meeting. After the Conservation Commission vote, their meeting would be closed, following which the Board of Selectmen would need to vote, he said.
(9:59 elapsed)
Sally King, Chairman of the Conservation Commission then opened the Conservation Commission hearing. She introduced Jaci Grote, Mike Garvan, Jim Raynes and Lawton Struble, the other member of the Conservation Commission that were present.
Peter Crawford, 171 Brackett Rd., asked whether either the Conservation Commission or the Board of Selectman had made any assurances to the developer as to what action they would take. Ms. King and Mr. Musselman asserted that they had not.
Mr.
Crawford then stated that he noticed that Ed Hayes and John O’Neill were
present and asked whether the recent test pits referred to in the appraisal had
been conducted only on the RCD portion or on the entire property. Editor’s
note: Messrs. Hayes and O’Neill are
associated with the property owner.
Mr. O’Neill responded that 10-12 test pits on the back portion of the parcel had been conducted on February 6, 2013 and that he was surprised at the quality of the material. He asserted that the land is suitable for septic systems.
Mr. Crawford pointed out that the plan on which the appraisal was based has 16 lots. He asked where the test pits were. Mr. O’Neill stated that they tried to find like soils. From Liberty Common working over towards Alehson the soils were remarkable. A soil scientist witnessed the test pits. The property could easily be developed, he asserted.
Mr. Crawford asked whether differences had been found relative to the 2008 study done by the Rand family. Mr. O’Neill stated that they had used the same firm, GZA, formerly New Hampshire Soils. Jamie Long did this and evaluated the test pits. Jamie saw spectacular land, he said.
(14:27 elapsed)
Gregg Mikolaities, 411 Washington Rd. asked what the definition of “spectacular soils” was. Does it mean 12 lots? 2 lots? 16 lots? Mr. O’Neill responded, stating that the two foot to water table and five foot to ledge restrictions are very limiting factors. The State requirement is one foot to water table and four feet to ledge. Because those were exceeded, he considers the soils to be superlative.
Mr. Mikolaities stated that the description had gone from “spectacular” to “superlative.” He asked whether a lot density calculation had been done to see how many lots the “spectacular” soil would support. Sally King stated that an appraisal had been done by Peter Knight which showed 16 lots and was based on NHDES lot density and the Town requirements, she asserted. Mr. O’Neill never responded to Mr. Mikolaities’ question.
(15:45 elapsed)
Victor Azzi, 1100 Old Ocean
Blvd., asked what the proposed acquisition price was. Ms. King responded that it was $1.25
million. Mr. Azzi asked about due
diligence and gave the example of the possibility of toxic waste. Sally King stated that she had spoken with
the Rand family. They said that all of
the mill area was the most compromised.
“They” tested the soils there and there were no hazardous wastes, she
asserted. She acknowledged, however,
that there had definitely been dumping.
Ms. King asserted that they were looking at getting grants to help them
clean up the site. After prompting from
Jaci Grote, Ms. King asserted that the dumping was “organic” and there was some
gravel. Editor’s note: The word
“organic” has multiple meanings. It may
extend from substances having properties associated with living organisms to
any chemical compound containing carbon.
Thus, sawdust as well as toxic hydrocarbons would fit within the meaning
of “organic.”
Selectman Musselman asked about an assertion during the site walk that GZA had done a study of the property in its entirety and that it came up with a “clean bill of health.” Sally King muttered a few words, apparently expressing a lack of knowledge regarding this issue.
Mr. O’Neill asserted that GZA had done a Level 1 assessment on the property and had given the property a clean bill of health. He then asked Mr. Hayes whether that was correct. Mr. Hayes stated that it was.
(17:53 elapsed)
Mr. Azzi asked who had done an appraisal on behalf of the Town’s interest. Sally King asserted that the appraisal had been done on behalf of Wallis Road Properties LLC, but that they are familiar with the appraiser, Peter Knight. She stated that an appraisal is not required. Mr. Azzi asked whether it was not required by law or by standard practice. He asked whether it was “common that a public institution would use the people’s money to purchase a piece of property without getting an independent appraisal on the value of that property.” Sally King responded that it was a judgment call and that she was very comfortable with Mr. Knight’s appraisal as she is familiar with his work. Mr. Azzi stated that, with a million dollar property he is accustomed to seeing two independent appraisals. Here there are zero independent appraisals. Furthermore, the appraisal was purchased by the seller of the property.
Selectman Musselman noted that this was a different circumstance than it might be if the appraisal was for the amount of the purchase. Here the sale price is 60 percent of the appraisal amount, he argued. The question is whether a different appraiser would come to value which is more than 40 percent different from the value with it developed with 16 lots.
(20:50 elapsed)
Joe Cummins, 990 Washington Rd., asked why
the existing owner could not keep the property and a conservation easement be
purchased. Jaci Grote responded that
easements do not necessarily provide access.
She stated that there would be access to this property just like the
Town Forest. Sally King stated that they
did not have the option of acquiring an easement. The owner is very willing to develop the land
if the Town does not purchase it. Jim
Raynes pointed out that the Town could ultimately use the land for a well.
(25:08 elapsed)
Kathy Hodson, 616 Central Rd. spoke in favor
of the purchase. Last March the voters
allocated $3 million. They thus
supported the purchase of land when it becomes available and it is appropriate,
she argued. She pointed out how dense
New Castle had become and that Rye, which is a desirable place to live, could
move in that direction.
Phil Winslow, 100
Harbor Rd., stated that he supported the acquisition. The 16 lots would certainly fetch $500,000, a
total of $8 million. The site preparation
and road would cost $2 million to $4 million.
The value to the developer could be substantial. The $1.25 million is a reasonable amount. He asked whether the Southeast Land Trust had
been approached to see if there might be funds available from them to help
defray the Town’s cost.
Sally King stated that
they had been approached and that they were trying to leverage the money. Jim Raynes pointed out that the closing date
was set for December 2015 to permit matching funds to be raised. Tracy Degnan had been hired to represent the
Town on this issue, he said.
(28:36 elapsed)
Tracy Degnan stated that she was with the
Rockingham County Conservation District and is also a Town resident. There is $121,000 from the New Hampshire DES
Aquatic Resources Mitigation Fund that has unofficially been committed. They have also applied to the New Hampshire
State Conservation Committee for $25,000, but no word on that has been
received. Finally, they are also working
on the Natural Resource Conservation Service which may take a year to
receive. That would be a Wetlands
Reserve easement. The Brindamour parcel
has such an easement, she said.
(30:32 elapsed)
Cecilia Azzi, Old Ocean Blvd. asked whether
they had considered buying the property when it went up for sale from
Rand. Sally King responded that they did
not have the money. Jim Raynes stated
that they had worked with Mr. Rand, Joe Tucker and Dave Borden to help the
Rands keep the property but the bank foreclosed before anything could
happen. Editor’s note: Joe Tucker is a
builder in Rye. David Borden is
currently the State Representative for Rye and New Castle. Jaci Grote pointed out that they could not
participate in the foreclosure because they did have the funds.
Lindsey Josephs, 540
Washington Rd., stated that it was pretty clear that the Conservation
Commission had done its homework. She
referred to wildlife displacement from the Whitehorse Farms development when it
went in. The price is fair for avoiding
16 new homes, she asserted.
Mark Epply, 267
Brackett Rd., pointed out that the $121,000 already committed is validation of
what they are trying to do.
Jane Holway, 647
Washington Rd., pointed out that all of he property had been put in easement,
and that her mother had said, years earlier, that “if you want to live in the
country you better own it.”
(33:34 elapsed)
Peter Crawford passed
out a single page document to members of the Board of Selectmen and the
Conservation Commission.
Selectman Mills asked
whether this was similar to the untruths that Mr. Crawford had at the polling
place the prior March. Mr. Crawford
ignored Selectman Mills.
Mr. Crawford held up a
copy of sheet and pointed to the plan from the appraisal which was reproduced
on the back of the page, that, he said, valued 16 lots at $400,000 each. We should try to protect this parcel, but the
question is the price, he said. We need
to make sure, as a town, that we’re not paying more than fair market
value. He stated that he had reviewed
the appraisal in a fair amount of detail, and could not reach that
conclusion.
There is a lot of land
in the Town that could be developed, he said.
The build out study done in 2002 came up with 1512 lots. If that is multiplied by $400,000, that’s
$600 million. Even considering that
developers would mark property up twice, it still would be $300 million to put
all of this in conservation. There is a
need to focus and be smart. The Town
actually did a pretty smart job with the first $5 million, with a few
exceptions. There were some real
bargains, he said.
Mr. Crawford stated
that he is concerned about the $3 million just voted. Based on the budget session a couple of weeks
earlier, he is hearing that that could all be gone in 2015.
Jaci Grote interrupted
and referred to a “place marker” in the CIP Plan. That is not to say that they are going to ask
for that money then, she said. She
stated that she put that in the plan for “very good planning,” and it was not
to be used for any other purpose. She
asserted that they had no plans to do anything other than this acquisition.
Mr. Crawford responded,
stating that he was basing his assertion not on the fact that there is an entry
in the CIP Plan for 2017 but on what was said at the all-day budget session of
the Board of Selectmen where it was revealed that the intent was to draw down
the full $3 million bond early next year because it could all be spent next
year. Editor’s note: The latest CIP
Plan has a $3 million dollar request for conservation land purchases in 2017.
Sally King responded
that they did not know and acknowledged that this was possible.
(38:09 elapsed)
Mr. Crawford stated that an independent
appraisal is needed, and referred to Mr. Azzi’s earlier statement.
Mr. Crawford asked
whether the test pit data referred to by Mr. O’Neill was included in the “a to
p” document or whether that data was for the RCD land. Mr. O’Neill stated that he was not familiar
with what Mr. Crawford was talking about, but reiterated that the test pits out
back had been done on February 6, 2013.
Mr. Crawford stated that there was a later report by Jamie Long oriented
towards the RCD. Mr. Crawford stated
that he had reviewed with Peter Rowell a plan which showed 20 test pits, all
within the RCD. Editor’s note: Peter Rowell is
the Building Inspector. Those seemed
to match up with the test pit data which is in the “a to p” document, he
said. Unless someone can demonstrate
otherwise, he believes that the “a to p” document is not based on any test pits
in the back, Mr. Crawford said.
Mr. Crawford continued,
stating that whether or not that data is part of the package is critical
because whether or not the land is developable has a direct bearing on the
value of the property. The appraisal was
based on 16 lots at $400,000 each based on a discounted cash flow which arrived
at $2.1 million after deducting $1 million for the road and water, and
additional amounts for real estate commissions, legal and permitting costs, he
said.
Mr. Crawford then
referred to the bottom of the page that he had passed out. He stated that he had used the appraiser’s
figures and had done a sensitivity analysis.
Varying the property value from $400,000 to $350,000 causes the total
value to drop from $2.16 million to $1.74 million. Varying the assumption on the number of lots
downward from 16 to 14, 12 or 10 lots would cause the value to go all of the
way down to $644,000 using their data.
There are seven comps
in the appraisal. Only one of those is
more than $400,000 and that’s on Colburn Rd., about Ľ mile from Foss
Beach. Everyone knows that land near the
beach is valued higher, he said.
Sally King asked Mr.
Crawford whether he had taken into account the year of the transaction. Mr. Crawford stated that he had. In fact, the appraisal had adjusted the
values incorrectly as there was a six percent adjustment for a transaction
which had occurred within a few months of the appraisal. If their 4 percent appreciation rate is
correctly applied to each property, using the number of months between the time
of the transaction and the appraisal, the average is $377,000 for their
comps. Adjusting for that mistake, the
value is reduced to $1.97 million, he said.
Mr. Crawford continued,
stating that the test pits are critical.
Only 10-12 were done, so they could not possibly all have been within
each of the 16 lots to be developed.
Jaci Grote interjected
that the presentation was theoretical and had been provided to them at the last
minute. Sally King then said that she
would give Mr. Crawford five more minutes.
(44:54 elapsed)
Mr. Crawford stated that they did not know
that all 16 lots are developable. He
then referred to the dotted portions of the map, which are wetlands. The lines a certain distance back are
believed to be the 75 or 100 foot buffer, he said. Within those, there can be no building or
installation of a septic system. Mr.
Crawford referred to a lot by the corner of a curve where the road turns to go
south there is a tiny bit of uplands outside the buffer. A house and a septic system would need to fit
into that tiny piece. The plan looks
like its Gerrymandered. The lines are
drawn to try and get the frontage, he said.
Sally King asked
whether Mr. Crawford had brought this up with Peter Knight. Mr. Crawford responded that it was not his
burden to demonstrate the adequacy of the work, but instead it is the
responsibility of the Conservation Commission and the Board of Selectmen, which
have a fiduciary duty to do the right thing for the Town.
(46:34 elapsed)
Mr. Crawford referred to the 3600 foot road
assumed by the appraisal. The Town’s
Zoning Ordinance and LDR limit dead end streets to 600 feet. Editor’s
note: LDR refers to the Land Development
Regulations, promulgated by the Planning Board.
Mr. Crawford quoted from page 23 of the appraisal “no subdivision
would appear legally permissible.” A
highest and best use study requires that the appraiser make sure that the
development being used to calculate the value is legally permissible.
Sally King interrupted
and stated that she had spoken with someone on Alehson whom the developer had
spoken with about negotiating a “way in” off of Alehson. Mr. Crawford responded that no house had been
bought there yet.
Mr. O’Neill interjected
that, with a through road from Liberty Common to Alehson there would be no
cul-de-sac required and the land would be easily developable. Mr. O’Neill stated that the reason that the
property had not been test pitted all of the way to Alehson was that the good
results obtained, and the fact that it was February and nighttime assured him
that the soils were “great.”
Sally King stated that
Mr. Crawford had one more minute.
Mr. Crawford continued,
stating that the way the appraiser gets around the fact that the development is
not legally permissible is by referring to Whitehorse and asserting that that
road is longer than 600 feet. Mr.
Crawford then related the history of the Whitehorse development. It started out as 28 lots. The Planning Board turned it down. They sued, and as part of the settlement the
28 was reduced to 15 and the Town was able to buy 80-100 acres for
$210,000, he said.
Mel Low stated that he
had 38 years in banking, and had been on the Planning Board forever. Unless Mr. Crawford is a certified appraiser
he has no right to pick Mr. Knight’s appraisal apart, Mr. Low said. He related a story about how he had
questioned a VA Appraisal in Hampton.
The appraiser said “look, you take care of the lending; I’ll take care
of the appraisal, and I backed right down.”
With regard to Whitehorse, Mr. Low stated that he was on the Planning
Board at that time and that the Conservation Commission had received land that
could not possibly have been built on.
He asserted that it was a gift.
Sally King confirmed. Editor’s note: A notice announcing the hearing on this
acquisition, citing a $210,000 price, appeared on page A8 of the Portsmouth
Herald of October 12, 2002. Mr. Low
stated that, when he looks at Portsmouth he is so proud to live in Rye.
Mr. Crawford stated
that he had reviewed the case file at the Superior Court and had gone through
the Planning Board minutes, and does not recall there ever having been a
mention that some of the 28 lots were not developable. Mr. Crawford asserted that a significant part
of the land acquired for $210,000, or for free, was developable. Mr. Low stated that the Whitehorse developer
had initially wanted 44 units that were not single family and that they had
beaten them down. Mr. Raynes interjected
that it was to 15.
Mr. Crawford asserted
that the boards needed to exercise their due diligence and look at the concerns
that he had raised and not act today but rather review the matter further
before making a decision. If it turns
out that the value is less and a deal cannot be reached at a lower price the Planning
Board could always turn it down on the basis that the street exceeds 600
feet. If they accepted it, the residents
would have the option of going to Superior Court.
Sally King asserted
that this acquisition had been more highly vetted than any to date.
Selectman Musselman
then read correspondence from Steven Borne into the record. It stated that Mr. Borne supported acquiring
the property for conservation. However,
the letter raised the issue of possible environment contaminants, and the absence
of strategic benefits such as walking trails.
The letter stated that he “does not believe anyone is taking the
exaggerated assessment (sic) seriously.”
The letter ended by cautioning against overpaying.
Joe Cummins asked
whether there had been a test for dioxins.
Mr. O’Neill asserted that there was no presence of dioxins. Editor’s
note: Dioxins are an organic chemical
because they include carbon atoms. Mr.
Cummins stated that implicit in that assurance was an assumption that there had
been a test for that. Mr. O’Neill stated
that a Level 1 assessment had been done, with some ground work as well. An analysis of arsenic, lead, ground
contaminants and testing of soils was included, he said.
Mr. Cummins stated that
the Conservation Commission was better for Mr. Crawford’s presence. Ms. Grote interjected that “we love Peter”
and that they get along great.
Mr. Cummins then
referred to an interruption by Ms. Grote at a meeting in March discussing
ballot irregularities. Editor’s note: See the notes of the March 10, 2014 Board of
Selectmen meeting and the video recording at 38:26 elapsed. At that meeting Ms. Grote interrupted Victor
Azzi and called his comments “ridiculous and juvenile.” Mr. Cummins asked that the Chairman of
the Conservation Commission ask the Board of Selectmen to retract the
implication that Mr. Crawford speaks untruths.
Sally King declined to do so. Editor’s note: It appeared that Ms. King assumed that Mr.
Cummins was requesting the retraction of a statement made in March rather than
the quip made by Selectman Mills earlier in the ongoing meeting.
Mr. Cummins stated that
he does not believe that Mr. Low believes that bankers should do their business
and appraisers their business. That is
the subprime crisis, he said.
(59:03 elapsed)
The public hearing was then closed by the
Conservation Commission. Without further
discussion, Jaci Grote, prefacing her motion with an enumeration of the aspects
of her involvement in the transaction, made a motion to accept the Purchase and
Sale Agreement as written, upon the approval of the Board of Selectmen. Jim Raynes seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously. There was then a motion to adjourn the
Conservation Commission meeting, which carried unanimously.
(60:46 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman
then reopened the Board of Selectmen meeting.
He asked for discussion.
Selectman Jenness
stated that they had had the “a through p” document. It was a far more complete job than that for
anything purchased before. She
appreciates everyone’s comments but it is an important piece to acquire. There is still some misconception about how
they might be able to obtain this for a song or put a right of way across it
and have it just sit there forever. That
is not going to happen, so she approves, she said.
Selectman Musselman
stated that he presumed that the Conservation Commission had reached a wall and
could not negotiate a lower price. At
that point he paused only briefly, and Sally King can be observed on the video
moving her head slightly. Selectman Musselman then continued,
stating that the variations in lot values between $350,000 and $400,000 are
“indeed in the purview of an appraiser and not us.” With regard to the question of whether or not
the soils will support 16 lots, Selectman Musselman stated that he had been
dealing with soil characterizations in Rye with respect to waste water disposal
since the mid-1970s. He stated that he
had walked the property and had not seen or observed any test pits.
Selectman Musselman
continued, stating that the issue on this property is whether there is adequate
depth of bedrock. There are bedrock
ridges here. In this soil type, in the
northern part of Rye where one does not have bedrock outcrops, the soils are
generally deep and very grouty, he asserted.
With the test pits that were described, the likelihood of finding more
information indicating the absence of adequate soils to support additional
homes, with the information before them, does not have any basis whatsoever. He asserted that Mr. Crawford does not have
the credentials to make any judgment in that regard. Spending a whole lot more money to have
someone scratch around there looking for high groundwater where it is not going
to exist is not wise. Editor’s note: See http://ryecivicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/RandLotLayout.pdf
for the appraisers plan showing areas of
wetland with dots. The proposed lots are
interspersed with wetlands and at least 3 lots have minimal uplands area
outside of the buffer that can be reached from the road without a driveway
crossing the wetlands. The offer is
$1.25 million and the Town can buy it or not buy it and it can be developed,
Selectman Musselman said. It is a below
market acquisition and he is in favor of it, he said.
Selectman
Mills stated that he was in favor of it, and had been for quite some time. “As far as Mr. Crawford’s figures, you know
the old saying, I’m personally involved in it because it happened to me the
last election, you know figures, you can do figures, but figures don’t lie but
liars can figure. And, Mr. Hayes, you
could have solved the whole problem that day on the site walk. You were driving the car and I told you to
‘go ahead.’ I’m in favor of it.”
Editor’s note: At the election
on March 11, 2014 Mr. Crawford had held up a sign that asserted that the Town
tax rate would rise to $3.62 from $3.12 if all warrant articles passed. All articles except one, for $46,915,
passed. The tax rate, as indicated at
the beginning of this meeting, was set at $3.68, slightly more than Mr.
Crawford had projected in March.
Selectman Jenness then moved to approve the
acquisition as proposed. Selectman Mills
seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Selectman Musselman
then asserted that there had been due process.
A recess was
then taken. The video skips from 7:40:20
p.m. to 7:45:06 p.m. at 66:44 elapsed.
CIP Plan process (66:44 elapsed)
Ray Jarvis, Chairman of
the CIP Committee addressed the Selectmen.
He said that he had missed the meeting at which the plan had been
presented to the Selectmen. Editor’s note: See the notes of the October 15, 2014
meeting. Mr. Jarvis said that he
does not understand the Board’s comments, which were conveyed to him second or
third hand. They have sent the Selectmen
a letter composed by Member Mae Bradshaw.
Mr. Jarvis enumerated the other members of the Committee as Phil
Winslow, Jeanne Moynahan and Ned Paul.
He also referred to a five page article from Attorney Fillmore, writing
for the New Hampshire Municipal Association, discussing Capital Improvement
Plans. Editor’s note: This article,
which appeared in the September/October 2014 issue of New Hampshire Town and
City, is entitled “The Best Planning Tool You Aren’t Using: Capital Improvements Plans.” It is available at: http://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/586. The article refers to a CIP Plan as “a
prioritized list of anticipated large expenses,” and explains why CIP Plans are
needed, how a plan fits into local government, and how a plan should be put
together.
Mr. Jarvis said that
there was a proposal that not all departments and precincts be included in the
CIP Plan document. They believe as a
Committee that it is absolutely essential that all of the entities be included
in the document so that the voters have a picture of what capital investments
are being requested this year as well as the next six years. It was proposed that capital investments not
affecting 100 percent of the residents be part of the document. This would pose a serious problem as a $15,000
item affecting all residents would be in the CIP Plan, while a $2.5 million
item affecting only 70-80 percent of the residents would not be. He cautioned against ignoring huge
costs. Most of the reasons for having a
CIP would be diminished or not fulfilled at all if all entities are not
included. It really poses the question of
whether there should be a CIP Plan or a CIP Committee if it were not going to
be done properly, he said.
Referring to RSA 674:5,
Mr. Jarvis stated that the third reason is that the Board of Selectmen, the
Budget Committee and the town knows what everyone else is doing and is aware of
the best year to seek approval. He spoke
about leveling the budget.
Mr. Jarvis then read
from RSA 674:7, II, which says “whenever the… capital improvement program
committee is authorized and directed to prepare a capital improvements program,
every municipal department, authority or agency… shall, upon request of the
capital improvement program committee, transfer to the… committee a statement
of all capital projects it proposes to undertake during the term of the program.” Editors
note: Mr. Jarvis omitted inapplicable
references to the Planning Board as he read the statute. There are two important words: “every” and “shall.” It doesn’t say “should,” he said. The bottom line is that a full picture is
needed.
Selectman Jenness
stated that the question wasn’t whether the Water District should be in the
program, which she agreed should be the case, but rather whether the cost of
those items should be averaged in with all of the other departments.
Selectman Musselman
suggested that the Water District and the Village Districts be included but
separated out.
Selectman Mills state
that he did not agree as the Water District people are after him. They are not part of the Town, he said.
Selectman Musselman
then said that he was not sure that the Water District is a municipal agency or
that they are “municipal.”
Phil Winslow stated
that Art Ditto and the other Water District Commissioners do not want to
regurgitate the data as they have a plan of their own. He reached agreement with Mr. Ditto that they
would provide the figures and the CIP Committee would then put them in its
format.
Selectman Musselman
stated that he had a different point to make about the CIP process. He then showed a graph of the annual debt payments
from 2006 forward. What is committed now
is at a significantly lower level than it has been. A lot of debt has been paid off. He pointed to a graph showing what would
happen if the Town Hall was financed over 10 years with constant principal and
declining interest payments. It shows
the Town going back to almost where it was previously with respect to debt
load. He then showed another graph of
the total debt, with an increase due to the conservation debt. Editor’s
note: See the RCL 2014 budget analysis
at http://ryecivicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/RCL-2014-Budget-Analysis-pre-Town-Meeting-29-Jan-142.pdf. Pages 8 and
13 of that document show how, the last time there was a spike in new debt, the
tax effect was offset in part by the elimination of the donor town taxes (i.e.
the portion of the State School Tax that is remitted to the State rather than
retained by the Town).
The CIP Plan has been
some measure of a wish list, Selectman Musselman said. There are things on that list that “don’t
have a snowball’s chance in a warm place of proceeding” in the indicated year. There are major expenditures in 2016 and 2017. Those are not the times to do these
projects. There needs to be some
sequencing, creative financing or delay to make these fit in. Although it is not their decision to make, it
certainly would be helpful if the Committee would provide its opinion. He has dealt with a lot CIP Plans in New
Hampshire. Most have been winnowed down
so that the plan is spaced out with projects that the municipality really
intends to do. The CIP Plan should be
more of a plan and less of a wish list.
The Board of Selectmen should stay away from this.
Ray Jarvis stated that
their two or three basic principles are constantly ignored. There is no one on the Committee who can talk
to the departments with any expertise. The residents should be able to look at
the projects and vote them down if need be.
Selectman Musselman disagreed.
People are “taking your numbers and adding them up,” he said.
Mae Bradshaw stated
that they do prioritize. They prioritize
with safety, maintenance and desirability under the Master Plan. Selectman Musselman suggested that
affordability and how it fits in the financing structure of the Town be added.
Ned Paul suggested that a top ten set of
recommendations could be done.
(99:23 elapsed)
Sam Winebaum referred to a county outside of
Detroit where the voters vote on projects for the next two to three years. They have been successful using this
approach.
Victor Azzi, Old Ocean
Blvd. stated that most people agree that the CIP Plan is good and is getting
better. However, the people who are
doing the plan do not want to set priorities.
About a year ago they tried to put forward a Facilities Master
Plan. What was put together a year ago
was the start a Facilities Master Plan as it was an inventory of existing
conditions. If this Committee is not
willing to prioritize, then some other group needs to do the master planning
relating to physical facilities.
Selectman Musselman
stated that that was being begun with an RFP for recreation needs. Right now they are facing three big numbers in
a short period of time.
Selectman
Musselman referred to a storm water
management plan in which 66 structures would be prioritized. He stated that the Beach Parking Study would
potentially add additional investments.
Selectman Jenness referred to the Parsonage Apartments. Editor’s
note: See the notes of the October 27,
2014 meeting at which it was revealed that a new roof and other improvements
would be needed. Ned Paul referred
to the Public Works Department.
Ocean Blvd. Parking Study (107:09 elapsed)
Town Administrator
Magnant introduced Jason Plourde and Gregg Mikolaities, of Tighe & Bond who
had worked on the study.
Mr. Plourde stated that
the project started as a straight parking study for residents and
visitors. They also looked at private
parking lots. They have found that a lot
of the signs are not consistent.
Residents purchasing beach parking permits receive only a list, not a
map. Some of the resident parking areas
have only sporadic signs. He suggested
that maps be distributed with the parking permits.
During July and August
there is a lot of parking and conflicts between cars, bikes and
pedestrians. When Ocean Blvd. and the
parking lots fill up, overflow occurs onto neighborhood streets, Mr. Plourde
said.
Generally the no
parking zones and time limits are being observed. The resident parking areas are not fully
utilized. People may not know where they
are. Selectman Mills disagreed, stating
that it had been a light summer for parking.
Mr. Plourde referred to
parking in close proximity to driveways and private traffic cones and signs
being installed. These are illegal, he
said. Parking close to intersections is
a big safety concern for cars exiting driveways, cars on side streets and
pedestrians trying to cross the street.
A DOT standard is that one should not park within 20 feet of an
intersection, whether it’s a driveway or a full intersection. Editor’s
note: RSA 265:69 makes parking within 20
feet of a crosswalk or intersection illegal, but provides only that one may not
park “in front” of a driveway.
If all parking is
eliminated, on one or both sides of the road, people will find other places to
park. That problem would need to be
solved, whether it’s satellite lots, or parking further in on residential streets,
Mr. Plourde said.
They came up with two
different striping alternatives. One
would be to stripe Ocean Blvd. with lines to show where each individual parking
space is, with no parking signs as well.
That would provide sufficient sight distance between the last car and
the driveway or intersection. Another
suggestion would be a large “X” in intersections, warning against blocking the
intersection. That would discourage people
from parking too close to the intersections.
But, the preferred alternative would be to mark the spaces, he
said.
The draft study
identifies signage and sight distance concerns.
It identifies where people are predominantly parking and where parking
is available. An alternative is
presented for satellite lots, thinking “outside the box.” Three possibilities are at the Elementary
School, the Junior High School, and at the Outer Marker. These are definitely beyond walking distance
so there would need to be a shuttle service.
There are two seasonal temporary parking lots along the corridor. The Town might want to consider finding other
private-owned properties and use those to get people off of the road.
(116:50 elapsed)
Mr. Plourde said that
they also looked at parking meters and whether it would make sense to have
existing visitors along Ocean Blvd. pay to park rather than having people
avoiding the state-owned or public pay areas.
He suggested kiosks where credit cards could be used with tickets posted
on dashboards. A preliminary evaluation
indicates that the numbers would work. A
more in-depth evaluation would need to be done.
There would be startup
costs of buying the kiosks, but the program would still make money in the first
year. A temporary, part-time employee
would be needed to collect the money from the kiosks and identify maintenance
issues to be handled by the DPW. The
kiosks would be in place during the 90 day busy period between Memorial Day and
Labor Day. Another cost would be a
police staff member to make sure that people are not violating the time cards. There would be additional costs for wireless
communications and credit card services.
First year profit would
be $90,000 to $100,000, Mr. Plourde said.
After that the profit would be $400,000 annually. There has been concern about the state taking
over the operation as it is a state road.
A formal written agreement with the State might be appropriate, he
said.
(120:58 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness asked about the
requirements for putting a pedestrian walkway on the side of the road. She asked whether it would need to be on one
or both sides. Mr. Plourde responded
that there would be a problem with a bicycle traveling against traffic. Gregg Mikolaities spoke about the need for a
barrier if parking was eliminated from one side and replaced with a bike
lane.
Selectman Jenness
pointed out that Ocean Blvd. had been laid out at 100 feet wide, but there have
been encroachments. Selectman Musselman
stated that the State has the right to use the land, but it would cost a lot of
money to put bikeways and pedestrian lanes on both sides.
Mr. Mikolaities stated
that they had done a complete inventory of the parking from Odiorne to the
North Hampton line. Parking counts were
done during weekends and on weekdays. He
rode his bike along there at a different time every day for 60 days in a
row. The striping and meters would be
from Marsh Rd. to Highland Terrace. Editor’s note: This is an apparent reference to Highland
Park Ave., a street off of Ocean Blvd. just north of the Crown Colony
Cottages. The second section would
be from Harbor Rd. to Perkins. There are
no meters and these are the predominant areas where people are parking, he
said. They are not proposing striping
all of Ocean Blvd. from Odiorne to the North Hampton line, Mr. Mikolaities said.
Selectman Musselman
stated that they and the citizens need to digest this. One concept presented is the striping, with
or without meters. He questions whether
the occupancy of the metered spaces would be as high as has been assumed or the
costs as low as was assumed, but it looks extraordinarily positive. They are hearing from citizens about safety
issues associated with driveways, intersections and pedestrians walking
laterally next to the cars with coolers, chairs and umbrellas. There are bicycles that cannot be seen
traveling adjacent to the cars. People
are complaining bitterly about trash being left in yards and the changing of
clothes in public. Striping would help
with safety issues associated with driveways and intersections. However, it does not help with the safety of
pedestrians or bicyclists or the behavior of visitors. The striping would result in the loss of some
public parking, although Rye has been adamant about not precluding public access.
Selectman Musselman
said that the second option would to clear out both sides of Ocean Blvd. and
develop a large remote parking lot with a shuttle bus. There would be a charge for parking. Both alternatives should be seriously
considered. If the Town starts striping,
the second option would never be addressed.
There are large enough parcels in Rye to do what has been suggested,
although not the three mentioned. Some
are publicly-owned and consist of 7 or 8 acres.
Selectman Musselman asked about other communities who had done this, and
how this option would work for visitors bringing large amounts of impedimenta
to the beach and surfers.
Mr. Mikolaities
responded that they have staff that live up and down the coast. A remote lot is not great, but it would work
if it is the only alternative. Their
first choice would be two seasonal lots, one in the Wallis Sands area and one
in the Jenness Beach area. These would
be convenient as they would be within walking distance. But, it would be expensive and a payback
analysis would be needed. They noted
that people are going to pay to come to the beach. The sixteen dollars a day is not deterring
people.
There was then
discussion about drop off areas.
Selectman Musselman
stated that he did not believe that a mile and a half trip from a remote lot
would be an impediment. But it might not
work for surfers, he admitted.
There was then
discussion about surfers skateboarding in from distant parking areas, and
surfboard trailers behind bicycles.
Police Chief Walsh
stated that there were numbers in the report regarding pedestrian/bicycle
accidents. Most accidents occur when a
vehicle is backing up. Bicycles are
small, he said. He provided a number of
examples of accidents that have occurred.
(136:38 elapsed)
Bob Consentino, 32 Powers Ave., expressed
concern about cars parked on the crosswalk itself, particularly near the Rye
General Store. A second issue is bicycle
safety. It is extremely dangerous in the
summer as there is no bicycle lane.
Sam Winebaum, 52 Cable
Rd., stated that striping of parking spaces, and ticketing if the vehicle is
not in the parking space, would help. He
agrees that the signs are confusing. The
striping would help with that.
He then spoke about
State Senator Stiles obtaining lots of money for Hampton, but not much for
Rye. He asked about the possibility of
grants.
Selectman Musselman
said that Senator Stiles had inquired in Concord, and that, if the Town incurs
the capital cost to install meters, it could retain the revenue. Editor’s
note: See RSA 231:130. However, there is the possibility that the
State law could change, he said. There
would need to be some kind of agreement with the State to avoid that.
Mr. Winebaum asked
about the hourly rate from the kiosk revenue used for their financial analysis. Mr. Plourde responded that it was similar to
the State charge: $2 per hour or $16 per
day. The kiosks would take credit cards
and cash, he said.
Tom Farrelly, 18 Gray
Ct., spoke about three meetings facilitated by Senator Stiles. A whole host of issues were identified. Some things have been addressed, others have
not. He asked whether that information
had been reviewed. Mr. Mikolaities
stated that they obtained the meeting notes and minutes. The minutes were fairly detailed, he
said.
Mr. Farrelly spoke
about the problem with vehicles parking too close to the crosswalk at the Rye
General Store. Mr. Mikolaities stated
that the vehicles should be parking no closer than 20 feet and that that issue
had been identified. Mr. Farrelly spoke
about sight problems associated with the vans from Canada which are parked with
several such vehicles in a row. Mr.
Mikolaities responded that there was an inability to restrict the type of
vehicle, but that vehicles could be restricted to legal spaces. He mentioned a 20 foot offset.
Mr. Farrelly stated
that Rye has a problem with 15 pounds in a 5 pound bag when it comes to crowds
and parking. From Maine to Florida, we
are one of the last desirable beach communities that has free parking, he said. He suggested that the additional costs of
trash, fire and police and other municipal services should be taken into
account. He has always been a proponent
of parking meters leveling the playing field and letting the chips fall where
they may. Mr. Mikolaities stated that
the analysis of these other costs was outside the scope.
Mr. Farrelly stated
that he had spoken with Senator Stiles at the polls during the recent
election. With regard to the concern
about the State taking away the right to install parking meters, Senator Stiles
stated that the Town would have a letter.
If anything ever happened the State would need to reimburse Rye for the
cost of the equipment before taking the revenues, he said.
Selectman Musselman
burst into laughter and referred to them taking the $200,000 cash flow. That is why an agreement is needed, he
asserted.
Selectman Musselman
asked how many of the 555 street parking spaces would be lost if the spaces are
striped. Mr. Mikolaities stated that it
was about 144. Selectman Musselman
referred to 20 percent of the parking being lost with setbacks for driveways
and intersections.
(147:11 elapsed)
Mae Bradshaw, 106 Harbor Rd., stated that
she would support the remote lot. That
is how it is done at Martha’s Vineyard.
People could then bike and walk on Route 1A, she said. Tom Farrelly interjected that this was a
great idea.
Sharon Consentino, 32
Powers Ave., referred to safety as a major concern. She asked why Rye was one of the few places
between the Cape and Kennebunkport where parking is allowed on both sides. It is almost impossible to pull out of
Powers, Gray or Perkins without getting out of the car to see who is coming,
she said. She spoke about issues with
campers and vehicles parking in the crosswalk and vehicles not stopping for
people already in the crosswalk. She
also mentioned possible legal liability for the town if someone is killed or
injured. It is difficult for emergency
vehicles to navigate Route 1A when there are people transporting impedimenta,
she said. They are at the end of the
road and people come down their street to turn around. There are also problems with public urination
in people’s yards, she said. There are
issues with dog poop and a myriad of bottles and other things left behind that
residents have to deal with. Perhaps
Jenness Beach is oversubscribed and they need to think about no parking on
Route 1A or shuttles. It has gotten
worse each year, she said. If someone is
approached about parking next to a fire hydrant they yell at you and that they
don’t care about a $25 or $50 ticket as they are from out of state and “they
will never get to me.”
Peter Crawford, 171
Brackett Rd., stated that the work was good and that he appreciates it. He stated that the striping is a good idea,
and that he is not worried about losing 20 percent of the parking spots because
that will lower the traffic at the beach.
The meters seem to make a lot of sense financially. The concern would be forcing people who want
to avoid paying for parking onto the inland streets. To avoid that, these areas could be made no
parking or resident parking only a certain distance in from the beach so people
would have a long way to walk if they wanted to avoid a meter, he said. He asked whether that issue had been looked
at.
Mr. Mikolaities stated
that the issue was mentioned in the study.
People are parking past the condominiums and walking a long
distance.
Selectman Musselman
stated that “we may be dreaming” if we think that eliminating 145 Ocean Blvd.
parking spaces would result in fewer people accessing the beach. On hot summer Saturdays all of those people
are going to come and they are just going to walk further. If the number of parking spaces is reduced
some other option needs to be provided.
It will pay for itself, he asserted.
Selectman Jenness asked
what the figures would look like if all parking on the inland side of Ocean
Blvd. were eliminated and the accurate distance from driveways and roads was
implemented, as well as striping of the correct size for parking. Mr. Mikolaities referred to 140 parking spots
on the east side and 555 total between Marsh Rd. and Highland Park Ave. and
Harbor Rd. and Perkins. There was
further discussion about the figures that culminated in Mr. Mikolaities citing
a figure of approximately 220 spaces lost.
(156:04 elapsed)
John Riley, 1285 Ocean Blvd., spoke in favor
of striping intersections and driveways.
He asked what the goal was of painting the parking spots in a limited
area. He referred to the area from
Petey’s to Wallis Rd. having been ignored.
Mr. Mikolaities stated that they had started south of Petey’s at
Highland Park Ave. and went all of the way north to Marsh Rd.
Selectman Musselman
stated that no parking on the east side of Ocean Blvd. at Wallis Sands came into
effect overnight by gubernatorial edict.
John Bellino, 2136
Ocean Blvd., stated that he shared a lot of sentiments of his neighbors. However, one of Rye’s principles has always
been to protect access to the beach. He asked
that that be considered. He spoke about
the safety issue associated with, and difficulty of, “edging out” of driveways
and streets.
Mr. Mikolaities stated
that looking at every intersection would need to be a follow-on step.
Mr. Bellino asked how
striping would improve safety. Mr.
Mikolaities responded that it defines parking and gives the Police Department a
means of enforcement when there is encroachment at a crosswalk or
driveway. It is a “free for all,” he
asserted. Selectman Musselman
interjected that it helps driveways, intersections and crosswalks, but does
nothing for pedestrian or bike safety.
Mr. Bellino asked how
parking meters would promote safety.
Selectman Musselman stated that they would not, they generate
revenue. Mr. Bellino responded that he
would take offense to a kiosk in front of his house that was there to generate
revenue rather than promote safety. He
believes that these should be taken off the table.
Selectman Musselman and
Mr. Mikolaities then discussed the issue and both appeared to agree that the
charge for meters would not reduce utilization.
Mr. Bellino referred to
the consideration of meters consisting of going down a “rat hole.” Selectman Musselman referred to people being
willing to pay for parking at remote lots.
Mr. Bellino referred to
the presence of Police Chief Walsh having been very positive. There was applause.
Mae Bradshaw stated
that the revenue would help pay for the extra police.
Sharon Consentino
suggested that no parking on either side of Ocean Blvd. and remote lots might
be the solution. Selectman Musselman
interjected “that’s an option.” Walking
and bicycling would be much safer, she asserted. They used to live in Hampton when there were
no meters, she said. When the meters
were put in the people came to Rye. They
do not want to pay, she asserted. The
only people who benefit from people coming to the beach are the few businesses
near Jenness Beach. The Town of Rye has
been more than generous in providing access to its beaches for everyone, she
said.
Sam Winebaum, 52 Cable
Rd., asked whether the boat lot at the Harbor could be used for parking. Mr. Mikolaities stated that that lot was
overused. It is more occupied during the
week with people being shuttled to the islands, he said.
Mr. Winebaum stated
that he is in favor of the striping. If
the vehicles are too big for the box, they will be ticketed. The camper vans would not fit, he said, and
they would need to find another place.
These are the big issues in terms of safety.
(165:23 elapsed)
Tom Farrelly, 18 Gray Ct., referred to the
community meetings and door-to-door surveys having revealed issues with people
having replacement knees and hips having problems scrambling over the chips at
Sawyers. This is one of the reasons that
these spots are not being used. He asked
whether some of the spots at Sawyers could be swapped with spots in flat
areas. By the time that people complete
their morning chores all of the good spots are gone. At each of the three meetings with Senator
Stiles, Bill Lambert of the DOT started and finished the meeting saying that if
it was up to the State there would be no parking on either side. Listen to the recordings and the notes, he
said. Mr. Lambert has said this at every
meeting, he asserted. Perhaps this should
push the Town towards a remote lot, he said.
Mr. Bellino spoke about
eliminating parking eliminating access to the beach. He said that putting in meters would be
financing a new police force. He asked
Chief Walsh about the cost of a summer policeman. Chief Walsh stated that it is not so much the
cost but it is an issue of finding the candidates. Mr. Bellino stated that there would be a
surplus from the parking meter revenue.
This is a safety issue, not one of putting a surplus in the Town’s hands
to buy a dump truck or fire truck or paint the Town Hall.
Selectman Mills
referred to a lawsuit and some of the residents being present that evening
being persons who were plaintiffs against “us” to keep the beach open. Editor’s
note: This is a possible reference to
the case of Purdie v. Attorney General, 143 N.H. 661 (1999) in which
approximately 40 beach-front property owners were plaintiffs. Victor Azzi, who was present was one of the
plaintiffs in that case. See http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20110619/News/106190324. However, this case was not against the Town,
but against the Attorney General, who was seeking to enforce a State statute
that would have redefined the high water mark (which is the seaward limit of
private property rights in New Hampshire) as the highest point reached during a
nineteen-year tidal cycle. The New
Hampshire Supreme Court determined that such a redefinition would
unconstitutionally deprive shorefront property owners of their property without
compensation.
Selectman Musselman asked about a follow-on
study to consider striping, parking meters, and where the 145 cars displaced by
the striping would go. He asked about
the scope of work. Mr. Mikolaities
stated that that would require about 80 hours worth of work to look at every
intersection, count and measure them.
That would include a plan showing where every parking space would
be. They would also want to spend more
time with the State looking at what they have been doing with regard to
meters. Selectman Musselman stated that
they would need to look at the occupancy during the three or four months and
the cost. Mr. Mikolaities stated that
they would take the data and do a more definitive economic analysis.
Selectman Musselman
then asked about the scope if a decision was made to focus on satellite lots
with shuttle service. Mr. Mikolaities
stated that they would first need to determine how many parking spaces would be
needed, whether that was 200 or 300, and then look at tax maps to find a
location. Then a broker would be needed
to approach owners. Mr. Mikolaities
stated that his firm has the expertise to determine the cost per space. Selectman Musselman stated that the efficiency
and cost of a shuttle service would need to be identified. Mr. Mikolaities stated that his firm had done
that. They have numbers, had started
going down that road, but had stopped.
Selectman Jenness
referred to an earlier comment made about swapping spaces at Sawyers
Beach. The Town purchased Sawyers Beach
so that would not be feasible. Editor’s note: By way of
1973 Warrant Article 12, the Town
voted to acquire Sawyers Beach for $30,000.
Selectman Jenness is
apparently arguing that the Town owns the land on which the resident parking
spaces adjacent to Sawyers are located, that this is not the case adjacent to
Jenness Beach, and that ownership of the land adjacent to the highway is
necessary to provide resident parking spaces.
If access is needed, there is a right of way between a house and the
beach club which is flat, she said.
Police Chief Walsh
stated that there would be unintended consequences regardless of what is
done. He referred to a business that had
attempted to change the use of its property.
Editor’s note: This is a possible reference to the Rye
General Store, which has sought to sell alcoholic beverages. He has been able to convince the State
agencies to keep the business at its current use. Whatever is done may cause him to lose an
argument that he could otherwise make. A
good hard look needs to be done.
(177:23 elapsed)
Tom Farrelly stated that Rye has a knack for
reinventing the wheel. He has changed
his mind. If it will take three or four
years to study a remote lot, he would favor the parking meters. He cannot wait 3-4 years for a magic
answer. He asked why, for once, the Town
couldn’t take a solution that everyone else is doing and try it here. We all have better things to do than to keep
coming back to meetings to address safety issues, he argued. Selectman Mills asked whether there was any
traffic on the road by Mr. Farrelly’s house when he bought it. Mr. Farrelly acknowledged that there was, but
asserted that it had gone way up.
Selectman Mills then
raised his voice and shouted at Mr. Farrelly, pointing his finger at him. He referred to “traffic on the boulevard” and
shouted “don’t come in here and try to snowball me.” The traffic has been there for years, he
asserted.
Mr. Bellino asked how
meters were going to stop people from coming to the beach. Mr. Farrelly stated that it would level the
playing field, as Rye is free.
Selectman Jenness
stated that there would not be a final decision tonight. The report is a draft and they must await the
final report.
(179:59 elapsed)
John Riley, 1285 Ocean
Blvd., raised the issue of whether the Town is breaking the law by not having
20 feet on either side of a driveway.
Mr. Plourde stated that the illegality he was referring to was the use
of traffic cones and signs by residents to prevent parking. The 20 feet from driveways is a guideline,
not a legal requirement, he said.
Selectman Musselman
suggested that the final report add information on the next steps, including
where the parking would go in the event of striping.
Selectman Mills said
that two site walks had been done at Mr. Riley’s house. He wanted 20 feet of clearance to the
driveway on the northern side, but addressing of the issue had been deferred
until the study had been completed. He asked
whether Chief Walsh was now ready to discuss the issue with Mr. Riley. Chief Walsh stated that he was willing to
talk with anyone, including Mr. Riley, but it is up to the Board. He is hearing that there is strong
recommendation of a 20 foot clearance to driveways. Selectman Musselman interjected that they
were not ready to do that in every instance and at every location in Rye. Mr. Plourde referred to a discussion with the
DOT regarding the 20 feet of clearance applying to intersections and it generally
being the rule for driveways as well.
They rely on 400 feet of sight distance in all types of weather,
including when there are snow banks.
An individual giving an
address at 2228 Ocean Blvd. stated that, if 20 feet is to be the rule for
driveways he also wants to be considered.
Road closure, Parsons Rd. (185:03 elapsed)
A request for road
closure from Ken Aspen of the Rye Water District from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on
November 12 was unanimously approved.
Town flag plans (185:18 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness
addressed this issue. A meeting would be
set up with the student who designed the flag and with Dr. Mittelman’s
daughter. Editor’s note: Mike Mittelman
who led the flag design program under the auspices of the Rye Historical
Society recently passed away.
Property liability insurance (186:18 elapsed)
Town Finance Director
Cyndi Gillespie reported that she contacted NHMA and that there are not
accepting any new clients until litigation has been resolved. Editor’s
note: At the all day Board of Selectmen
meeting on the budget on October 23, 2014, the insurance budget was tabled and
it was requested that alternatives to Primex be looked into.
Correspondence relating to summer and beach parking issues (186:38
elapsed)
Selectman Musselman
stated that correspondence from Frank McDermott and Mary O’Dowd relating to
parking would be part of the minutes.
These are on the consent agenda, he said. Selectman Jenness stated that this would be
on the agenda once there is a completed study.
Further questions on the flag
Mae Bradshaw asked
about public availability of the flag.
Selectman Musselman stated that five flags were being purchased directly
from the manufacturer. With regard to
purchases, Selectman Musselman indicated that the Rye Historical Society might
need to be involved as Dr. Mittelman had been working under their
auspices. It was agreed that Selectman
Jenness would call Alex Herlihy. Editor’s note: Mr. Herlihy is head of the Rye Historical
Society.
Non-public session (189:03 elapsed)
The selectmen then
unanimously, by roll call vote, entered into a non-public session on
personnel.
The video ends
at 9:47:44 p.m.