Minutes
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 31, 2008
6:30 PM Chair Netishen opened the meeting and asked all those present to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members Present: Peter Bock, Bill Netishen, and Town Administrator Charles Brown.
Guests: Sam Demeritt, Sue Mooney, Celia Abrams, Skip Seaverns, Bill Garnett, Chris Mills, Peter Gylfphe, and David Smith.
Others: Traci Chauvey, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Chair Netishen inquired about department reports. Mr. Brown reported that Nottingham Fire and Rescue is in the process of applying for 3 FEMA grants (two for gear and one for an emergency response vehicle) and Paul Colby, Emergency Management Director, had attended a POD meeting earlier this day. Mr. Bock, speaking to the public, stated that Emergency Management has many components, which involve not only the fire department, but also many town staff and the school. Chair Netishen reported that the Governor is concerned with the amount of snow this year, noting that Nottingham’s emergency management personnel have been in contact with staff in Concord and there is better coordination this year within the State in preparation for what may come. Mr. Brown reported that a draft Community Center
User Policy had been submitted. Chair Netishen, acknowledging Ms. Bonser’s absence, stated that he wanted all Selectmen to review the policy. Mr. Bock stated that he felt the draft was a good start. Chair Netishen reported that the Cub Scouts had held their Pinewood Derby in the multipurpose room on Saturday and it had gone very well. Mr. Bock reported that the new Advisory Assessing Committee had held two meetings and will report their work to the community. He stated that they are refining their relationship with the assessing process.
Board members also signed an Intent to Cut for Tax Map 12 Lot 6, an Intent to Excavate for Tax Map 10 Lot 12, the appointment form for the Deputy Tax Collector, and the MS-2.
Chair Netishen reviewed and read an application for appropriating funds for replacing the Mill Pond Bridge.
Motion: Mr. Bock motioned to sign the application. Chair Netishen seconded.
Vote: 2-0 in favor.
Motion: Chair Netishen motioned to have Charles Brown, Town Administrator, sign the Property Liability and Health Trust Application and Participation Agreement. Mr. Bock seconded.
Vote: 2-0 in favor.
Board members reviewed bills, mail, and correspondence.
Mr. Bock, speaking to the public, stated that it will be very important for home owners in the community to keep an eye on the areas surrounding their cellars, septics, and leach fields in the upcoming weeks.
Chair Netishen informed the public of the following upcoming meetings:
ZBA April 1, 2008 7:00PM at the Nottingham Municipal Complex
PB April 2, 2008 7:00PM at the Nottingham Municipal Complex
AAC April 7, 2008 7:15PM at the Nottingham Municipal Complex
PLAC April 8, 2008 7:00PM at the Nottingham Municipal Complex
Mr. Brown informed the Board that he had received the request for submittals to the Nottingham Community Newsletter, noting that the request usually provides only about a four-day window for submissions.
APPOINTMENTS:
7:00 PM – Nottingham Conservation Commission (NCC)
Guests: Sam Demeritt - NCC, Sue Mooney – NCC/Planning Board, Celia Abrams - NCC, Cynthia Copeland – Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Chair Netishen informed the public that the NCC has, for the past two to three weeks, been working on a grant application from the Office of Energy and Planning. He stated that they were present this evening to explain the grant and were hoping to receive support.
Acknowledging NCC members Sue Mooney and Celia Abrams, Chair Netishen noted that that the grant documents talk about multiple stages of study. Ms. Mooney stated that there are four stages to this grant process; each of which can take up to 18 months to complete. She and Ms. Abrams explained that Stage 1 consists of six tasks, five of which will be completed by a consultant. Tasks to be completed are 1) a housing inventory, 2) a demographics and economic study, 3) a review and mapping of natural resources, 4) a build-out analysis, 5) a survey and review of historical resources, and 6) public participation report. They gave an estimated time-line for the work, noting that public participation will involve anywhere from six to nine meetings beginning in July. Mr. Bock stated that they should be
able to obtain information from the school’s study that took place this past year regarding growth and expansion.
Ms. Abrams stated she wanted it to be clear that this was not a Nottingham Conservation Commission project – it was to involve all and a subcommittee would be formed. Mr. Bock inquired as to how much resources would be needed (staff time, funds, etc), why the application was just now being presented when it has a due date of April 11th, and if there were any neighboring communities that were going forward with this. Ms. Copeland reported that Milton and Wakefield are applying but Newmarket was not. She further reported that the cost to Nottingham associated with Stage 1 of the grant process is $1,225, adding that this can be an in-kind match. Ms. Mooney reported that applicants of Stage 1 are not obligated to apply for Stage 2, noting that goes for each Stage.
Mr. Bock noted that there had been no mention of economic impact. Ms. Copeland reported that that data can be included in Stage 1 but it would have to be included at the town’s expense. She further noted that another town had used the cost as their in-kind match. Mr. Bock stated that he has heard some concern about privacy. Ms. Mooney stated that the study would be looking to see what already exists in Nottingham, as well as, what Nottingham needs. Ms. Copeland stated that the consultant would just be gathering data that is already there. Ms. Abrams noted that no one would be knocking on doors.
Chair Netishen inquired as to whether the April 11th deadline could be extended and whether the presenters had identified a list of potential consultants. Ms. Copeland stated that the deadline could not be extended and that they could provide the Selectmen with a list of potential consultants. Chair Netishen voiced concern over the age of the Census data and reiterated Mr. Bock’s earlier comment about the study performed at the behest of the school this past year. Chair Netishen inquired about the $250 application fee and asked if matching funds would come from the Conservation Commission. Ms. Mooney stated that it would come from all committees. Chair Netishen inquired about the time frame for this grant project, noting that all four Stages totaled about $85,000 in grant
monies. Ms. Copeland stated that each contract is 18 months and that a town may opt out at any point. Ms. Mooney noted that it would make sense for the town to move forward if they were happy with the result of each stage.
Chair Netishen asked Ms. Mooney to speak about the subcommittee. Ms. Mooney stated that they are just starting to speak with community members, adding that the committee will have a year to do its homework.
Mr. Bock recommended a morning workshop for deliberation. Chair Netishen asked if the application was complete. Ms. Mooney reported that it needs to be cut back to five pages from seven. Chair Netishen set a workshop for Thursday, April 3, at 8:00 AM.
7:33 PM – Nottingham Planning Board
Guests: David Smith, Peter Gylfphe, Skip Seaverns
Mr. Smith stated that the Officers of the Planning Board had come before the Board of Selectmen this evening to address some unanswered correspondence regarding legal representation and to open communication on the process for seeking new council. He voiced concern over lack of response, specifically written response, to time sensitive issues. He stated that the Planning Board would like to find new representation. Mr. Bock asked if there are other communities that delineate council between different Boards of the town and voiced concern that the town would end up paying for one attorney to speak to another. Mr. Brown stated that he believes separate attorneys is not an acceptable practice and does not work. Chair Netishen agreed with Mr. Brown and informed Mr. Smith that there is a policy in
place for contacting the town’s attorney. Mr. Bock, acknowledging the rising cost in legal fees, stated that usage must be monitored very carefully and if representation is not available the Board of Selectmen must respond. Chair Netishen informed Mr. Smith that the Board of Selectmen would look into the problem and get back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Smith, acknowledging past confidence in their attorney, stated that he felt many of the issues should have been passed to an associate within the firm if the town’s attorney was going to be unavailable. Chair Netishen and Mr. Bock agreed. Mr. Seaverns suggested that all requests to the attorney be made in writing and contain a request for a written response. He asked for clarification of the policy for utilizing the attorney. Chair Netishen stated that contact should go through Mr. Brown, Town Administrator, to allow for cross-reference with billing. At Mr. Smith’s request the Board agreed to send copies of the Planning Board’s legal bills to the Planning Board for review and approval.
8:00 Gail Mills
Guests: Chris Mills, representing Gail Mills, Bill Garnett
Mr. Mills sat in for Ms. Mills to answer questions raised about the ordinance at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting held on March 17, 2008. He handed out copies of the ordinance and noted that it did not contain the amendments made at Town Meeting. He also handed out typewritten responses, which he read for the record. (See official file). Mr. Mills asked if USA Springs had been formally notified of the passage of the ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that they had not. Mr. Mills asked if he could have the audio tapes of the Town Meeting to copy. Mr. Brown said he could, after the Town Clerk had completed transcribing the minutes.
Mr. Bock, noting that he had taken his oath of office seriously, acknowledged the practicality of a declaratory judgment.
Chair Netishen invited Mr. Garnett to speak. Mr. Garnett stated that he feels the Board of Selectmen need to decide how to handle costs before action is taken under this ordinance. He voiced concern that the ordinance may hold a corporation liable, however, the courts may not. Referring to Mr. Mills’ written comments, he also voiced concern that if the ordinance is taken as a whole, it gives rights to all ecosystems, not just water. Mr. Mills noted that loss or pollution of the water would affect all ecosystems.
Chair Netishen acknowledged that the Selectmen are responsible for following up on the affects of Town Meeting. Mr. Bock informed Mr. Mills that his typed statement may be forwarded to the attorney for comment and recommendation.
Chair Netishen called a break at 8:35 PM. Meeting reconvened at 8:40 PM.
Motion: Chair Netishen made a motion to go into non-public session under RSA 91A:3 II (c), seconded by Mr. Bock. All in favor. Motion passed 2-0.
8:45PM – Ms. Chauvey left the meeting at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Recording Secretary
Approved with corrections, as noted in the April 14, 2008 Minutes.
THESE ARE THE REPONSES SUPPLIED BY MR. MILLS NOTED IN THE ABOVE MINUTES
Notes for Selectboard Meeting
Monday, March 31, 2008
Section 4 of the Ordinance is the Statement of Law. This is the intent/purpose of the Ordinance. All of the following sections back up the law. The entire Ordinance has to be looked at as whole and you cannot take any one part and look at it without putting it in context with the rest of the ordinance. For example, Section 6 deals with exceptions (note that there are four of these). You will see that after (1), (2), and (3) there are semicolons. You do not reach the end of the sentence until the end of part (4). So to look at section 6(1) and not go to the end of section 6(4) you will not understand 6(1).
Section 7 covers enforcement of the Ordinance.
Section 7.1
· If there is a challenge to the Ordinance, the Selectboard is directed to enforce it, the same as they would any other Ordinance. The Town pays.
· If the Selectboard refuses to enforce the Ordinance, then a citizen or a citizen’s group would have standing to enforce and provide defense for the Ordinance. The citizen group would initiate payment to bring the suit to defend the Ordinance. Citizen(s) pay(s) legal costs to bring the suit.
· The citizen group could simultaneously bring charges against the Town for not enforcing the Ordinance which was voted in by a majority (over 60%) of the residents at Town Meeting. This is the inherent right of the people to self-govern and the duty of the elected officials to represent them.
· Ultimately the Ordinance makes the corporation responsible for payment for ALL LEGAL FEES incurred by this challenge to the local law. Fees originally paid by the Town or by the citizens’ group are recoverable under the Ordinance. This is good for the municipality, as well, since the legal fees are paid by the corporation trying to harm the Town, the people, the environment; rather than by the Town and the taxpayers.
7.2, 7.3 states the rights of people and nature to access water.
· Without this ordinance, no resident could bring an action in court unless they owned and abutted the property of the corporation causing the damage. Gives residents standing in court regardless of whether or not they abut property.
· As with any other ordinance on the books, the Town is responsible to enforce the law. Ultimately, the corporation responsible for the damages, pays all of the court fees.
· This Ordinance does not give individuals the right to sue other individuals—they have that already. It does give individuals the right to sue corporations for violating their individual right to access, use, consume, and preserve water.
Section 7.4 prevents the Town or the State from overriding the Ordinance or intimidating the Town residents.
Section 7.5 makes the people using corporations to withdraw water in a neighboring town strictly liable for all harms caused to the people or the water within Nottingham.
Section 7.6 specifies that any violation by anyone connected to the issuance of any permit which allows water to be withdrawn in Nottingham shall be strictly liable for any damages caused to the town by the withdrawal.
Section 7.7 states that corporate claims to “future lost profits” shall not be recoverable.
Note: USA Springs is not “grandfathered”. This Ordinance is a stand alone, rights-based local law. This Ordinance protects and enhances the Civil Rights of the residents of Nottingham. Since this is not a land use or a zoning ordinance, any permits previously issued are null and void.
| 
