BOARD MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2006
Selectmen Present: Andrew Clukey, Chmn., Thomas Parker, & Michael Methe
Chairman Andrew Clukey opened the meeting at 8:35 AM.
PRIMARY:
The board reviewed the Boucher’s abatement application. Mr. Methe feels that in reviewing the values on this card he feels it is in line for the house. Mr. Parker stated that he is not sure if he agrees with the grade on this house. Mr. Parker does not feel that if they were to sell this house they would sell it for less then $338,000, which is what we have it appraised for. His concern is that the appeal factor is marked high. Mr. Methe stated that he does know that there is a small crawl space under the kitchen and the pipes freeze in the kitchen in the winter. Mr. Clukey is concerned that we be fair if we change this for them, then we have to make changes for everyone else. Mr. Parker feels that based upon all of the information they submitted, we should offer 5% additional
depreciation. Mr. Methe moved to offer 5% additional depreciation, Mr. Clukey seconded, the motion passed 3-0.
*** 10:00am MEET WITH MR. & MRS. BOUCHER:
Mrs. Boucher stated that she asked Mrs. Wittenborg to attend this meeting to takes notes. Mr. Methe stated that he is familiar that the kitchen was added in the 60’s. Mr. Clukey stated that we would be willing to add an additional 5% depreciation. Mrs. Boucher stated that they have 11 fireplaces listed on their assessment card. Mrs. Boucher stated that they have four working and one not. Mrs. Boucher stated this is on page five of what they wrote. Mr. Parker stated that the bulk of what they wrote is features that describe old houses. Mr. Parker stated that the external features listed such as the proximity to Rt. 119 and the house across the street do not have any bearing on the price of the house. Mr. Parker questioned if they think they could not sell this house for
$338,000. Mrs. Boucher did not. Mrs. Boucher stated that her concern is that randomly looking at other assessments they are at the highest end of the assessment. She needs these answers. Mr. Parker stated there are three areas they can adjust, condition, appeal rating and depreciation. She questioned why the previous assessment was at a 3 and now they are a 6. They have done nothing to the house with regard to changes. Mr. Parker stated that the assessor felt that the house warranted this. Mrs. Boucher questioned if they looked at the pictures they submitted. Mr. Parker stated that they did and this is where depreciation came in. Mrs. Boucher cannot comprehend how they are being compared to some of the other houses they are being compared to. Mr. Parker stated that Dave Arnold the assessor was the one to determine the appeal rating. This is based upon his decision as to the appeal rating of this
house. We cannot change this without going through every house with an appeal rating and assessing the different criteria. We would have to have someone come in that is trained in this field. Mrs. Wittenborg questioned if the board is constrained by the parameters applied. Mr. Parker stated he is not saying they can’t make adjustments, he is not comfortable with changing the appeal rating, they have to depend on them as a professional to make this determination. Mr. Parker stated that maintenance does not affect the appeal rating. Mrs. Boucher questioned how they could go from 3 to 6. Mr. Parker stated 2001 when the total reassessment was completed he feels that they under rated a lot of the old houses in town. Mrs. Boucher questioned if this increase was warranted. Mrs. Boucher stated that this is subjective. Mrs. Wittenborg questioned where is the data that was collected for this appeal rating? Mrs.
Boucher stated that the assessment was made from the road. Mr. Parker questioned if anyone went into the house. Mrs. Boucher stated that at the hearing they were told they did not need to. After the meeting, someone contacted them to view the house. Mr. Parker stated that we can request them to view this house. Mr. Methe stated that people need to consider what homes and land are selling for in town. He is fairly confident that they could sell their house for the assessed valued. Mrs. Boucher is concerned with how they came to this price. Mrs. Boucher questioned if someone is targeting them. The board stated that this is definitely not the case. We will correct the fireplaces and add an additional depreciation. Mrs. Wittenborg stated that they arguing disproportinality. She referred to 20 Robbins Road. Mr. Parker stated that this house in no way compares to the Boucher’s
house. Mrs. Boucher questioned if there is any other adjustment for what is on the walls, floors. Mr. Parker stated that they can speak with the appraiser. Mrs. Boucher questioned if they try to cover their mistakes. Mr. Methe stated that they are a State approved license appraiser. They have the option of hiring a private appraiser to obtain an appraisal of this property. Mr. Parker stated that in 2001 he was involved with hiring Vision and they came with very high recommendations. Mr. Parker stated that the board cannot second guess what the appraisers determined. Mr. Parker stated that the features of this house are indicative of an antique house, which many people look for these features.
Mr. Parker stated that the board is trying to be fair and equitable to everyone in town. They are not trying to second guess the trained appraiser.
Mrs. Wittenborg questioned what they do when you have two sides of a house, the appeal is driving the entire house. The only data collected to set the appeal rating is on the tax card. Mr. Parker stated that he is making an assumption that Dave Arnold looked at the notes taken by the data collector and he arrived at a decision as to his opinion of the appeal factor. Mr. Parker stated that if this factor was not used we would not be able to assess at market value. Mrs. Wittenborg questioned if the person who viewed this house was a credentialed appraiser. Mr. Parker stated to the best of his knowledge they were.
*** QUESTION ON ASSESSMENT ( MAP 22, lot 01): Mr. Methe feels we should look at this property. He has two separate septic systems. Mr. Nadeau does not feel he should be assessed for the full value of both systems since they do not have a kitchen in the cabin. Mr. Nadeau also submitted a sales receipt for the new trailer in the amount of $78,000. The replacement cost listed on his card is $88,000. The board would like to schedule a site walk of this property.
*** PURCHASE REQUESTION – CEMETERY DEPARTMENT : This is for the purchase of Microsoft access. Methe moved to approve, Parker seconded. the motion passed 3-0.
*** LETTER FROM BTLA: We have received a letter from Joan Goetee correcting the list of sale properties.
*** INVOICE FROM MILLER & VAN EATON: Approved
*** LETTERS OF AWARD FROM TRUSTEE OF TRUST FUNDS: Reviewed
*** REVIEW LETTER FROM DES: Reviewed
*** TOWN HALL RENTAL APPICATION: This is for the historical society, the board approved
*** REVIEW WATER TEST FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
· Idea from J. Holman regarding jaswell seal for well: Mrs. Thompson will pass the water test on to Pristine. Mr. Holman feels that we should try a Jaswell seal. He is estimating this to cost about $1500.00 . Mr. Methe feels that we should request quotes on the other systems and see where they come in at.
*** MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN REGIONAL PANDEMIC PLANNING: Mr. Parker has not reviewed this information. Mrs. Thompson stated that we need to take action on this as soon as possible. Mr. Parker would like to table this until next week.
*** ABATEMENTS:
Ronald Morey (Map 12, Lot 12): Mr. Parker viewed this property. Theresa Doyle admitted that for a short period time this was lived in. Mr. Morey currently uses this for his practicing with his band. We are assessing him for a septic system. They do have a tank sitting outside. Mr. Parker feels we should remove the septic system assessment. We will change the classification to a camp. We will reiterate that it is not to be used as a residence, even with a State approved septic plan. This
reduces the total assessment from $85,600 to $60,400. The abatement is granted.
John & Kathryn Powers (Map 42, Lot 2-55 ): The board denied this abatement. The board is aware that there are inconsistencies in the assessments at Woodbrook, but they do not feel that the Powers are unfairly assessed due to these inconsistencies.
Dennis & Ann Berard ( Map 34, Lot 15): They are located in a mixed-use area. The Berards are stating that there is a lot of traffic due to Mr. Mikes. The board does not feel that there is any basis for this abatement. The abatement is denied.
Frank & Lucia Bequaert (Map 32, Lot 44): The board performed a site visit on this property. They voted to change 14’x30’ area classified as office to utility/storage area. They also changed the 28’ x 29’ & 20’ x 13’ area from store display area to utility/storage. This resulted in a change of assessment from $399,300 to $346,500. The abatement is granted.
Emmett Watson (Map 32, Lot 56): They have an appraisal dated February 2004 from Merrimack Mortgage. They have a value of $400,000. We have it assessed at $440,000. This is appraised within 10% of the appraisal they submitted. The abatement is denied.
Sarah Korjeff (Map 03, Lot 10) : She would like to have the Selectmen view this property.
David & Barbara Green (Map 11, Lot 37): Mrs. Thompson stated that a good comparison to this house is the Schuster house, which sold for $431,000. They are stating that 1/3 of the house was built in 1931 and has been renovated. They feel there is incorrect information on the tax card. They feel that the part that was built in the 20th century should be assessed as such and the remainder as antique. They feel that their appeal rating should be changed from very good to good. The board feels that the ratings they are being assessed for are correct. Mr. Parker feels that we should be giving 5% functional depreciation. This brings this to $432,720. An abatement will be issued.
John & Doris Ernst (Map 06, Lot 31): Mr. Ernest filed his abatement application late and was denied. Mr. Parker stated he did review this card. We had the upper story classified as three-quarter story; it is in fact a half story. He has a small dormer in the back, none in the front. This changes the value from $287,100 to $276,600. He is questioning the land value. His neighborhood is different then property down the road. The board feels they cannot look at neighborhoods on an
individual basis, but this issue needs to be addressed town wide.
Virginia White (Map 37, Lot 11 ): Mrs. White feels that there should be adjustments for living on a private road. The board does not feel an abatement is warranted. The property is in line with other properties. The abatement is denied.
John Fitzwilliam (Map 32, Lot 08): Mr. Fitzwilliam has submitted a market analysis from Four Columns in the amount of $252,500. Mr. Methe feels that his statement with regard to the fact that this house is right on the road is correct and is a deterrent. The board feels that this assessment is in line with others. The abatement is denied.
Donald Moulton & Margaret Wittenborg (Map 15, Lot 60): The assessed value is $497,150. There is an assessment of multi septic systems. We will change this to a single. Mrs. Wittenborg feels there are data errors on her card. Mr. Methe feels that we should have Vision view this property again. They should take the listing and see if complaints are valid.
Frederick & Janet Wilkenson (Map 33, Lot 29 ): They are appraised at $280,800, with the preservation easement it is $260,600 they have an appraisal from Powers in the amount of $255,000. Mr. Methe stated that this is within 10%. Mr. Methe stated that this property used to have a shared well. He does not know if they have installed an additional one. Mr. Parker stated that he is aware that they have updated some rooms in this house. The board denied this application.
Susan & Seth Dmistrovsky (Map 33, Lot 23): They have an appraisal in the amount of $231,000 they are assessed at $221,300. The abatement is denied.
*** LETTER FROM SAU REGARDING DISTRICT EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN ANNUAL DINNER MEETING 6/8/06:
*** PLANNING BOARD: Mr. Parker reported that Mr. Holombo met with them, he needs another month to finalize the office expansion. The Planning Board is requiring a site plan. The plan is not complete; they are requiring a buffer. Mr. Clukey questioned if they measured the setback to the wetland. This is setback 91’.
The housing development that was referred to is a large parcel behind Mr. Niemela’s lot on Rt. 12. This has no frontage on a State or Town road.
Mr. Parker advised the Planning Board the Board of Selectmen would like to hold a meeting with Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Board Of Selectmen to discuss relationship of three boards.
The Planning Board met with Crystal & John Shouffler at 806 Rt. 119 West. They would like to have a horse farm. They have 51 acres of land. They are aggrieved by the setback for the fence. The Planning Board stated that the fencing setback was not for commercial. Mr. Parker does not feel there should be two sets of standards. The Planning Board will look into revising this. They also have an issue with regard to wetlands setbacks. Mrs. Thompson stated that they have had some questions with regard to existing fencing. The board agreed that these would be grandfathered.
Chickens: Mr. Parker stated it was brought to his attention that the Police Department or Code Enforcement do not feel they are in charge of enforcement for chickens. The Planning Board will look into to this ordinance for revisions. Mr. Parker feels that the Board of Selectmen need to make a determination with regard to enforcement issues and who has the authority and responsibility. Mrs. Thompson spoke with Chief Newton and his explanation is the police enforce State Statute and Code Enforcement town ordinance. Mr. Parker does not agree. He feels the police enforce other town ordinances. He feels that we need legal clarification as to enforcement. Mr. Methe would like to know if the police have authority to enforce town ordinances. Mr. Methe would like Tom
Mullins to determine if the town ordinance with regard to chickens can be upheld.
Impact Fees: Mr. Parker got the feeling that the Planning Board is against impact fees. They have $2500.00 in the budget to hire someone with expertise with regard to this matter. Mr. Parker feels that we should get a clarification on this issue.
PSNH: They want to install five poles on Number 4 road. Some of them would be about three feet off the pavement with the guide wires on private land. Mr. Parker stated that they would need a permit from the board and permission from the landowner. Carmen Yon was there. They discussed the materials used for these poles. The Planning Board is reluctant to allow these in the wetlands. Mr. Parker suggested getting information from DES with regard to this matter and the impact of the material. Mrs. Thompson stated that we define telephone poles as a structure. Mr. Methe feels there is potential of various boards disagreeing on this matter.
HERBICIDE: Mr. Parker questioned if we received an answer with regard to this question. He feels that we should contact DES
OUTSIDE FURNACES: Mr. Parker stated that he received a call from Tom Ordway with regard to outside furnaces. He has two neighbors that use these and there is a large amount of smoke. He questioned if there are any ordinances with regard to this. Mr. Parker would like to contact DES with regard to this.
RENE FISH: stopped by he questioned if the board had any concerns with state roads in town. Mr. Parker stated the intersection of Rt. 12 & Rt. 119, the catch basin by the church and the corner of Rt. 119 by Mr. Silvermans. Mr. Fish suggested filling out an insufficiency report on the catch basin. He agrees that this is a hazard.
BTLA HEARING: Mr. Parker feels that Mr. Clukey will be at the front desk answering questions. Mrs. Thompson questioned how we are going to address the issue of land values. Mr. Parker feels that this was based on very few samples. Mr. Clukey feels that a lot of the questions will be directed to Vision. Mr. Parker feels that we need to determine how we are going to handle neighborhood factors, he does not understand how these were determined. He knows that these were determined in 2001. Mrs. Thompson stated that we might want to meet with Dave Arnold again. Mr. Parker questioned Mr. Clukey what direction he feels we should be going. Mr. Parker feels that the BTLA will want know what the board is planning to do to correct the issues that are a problem.
Mr. Methe stated that he has no history of how this revaluation was put together. Mr. Parker stated that Mr. Clukey was involved in the reevaluation, and what decisions were made. Mr. Methe feels that if we took a survey of people how favorable they felt about the reassessment we would not get even 33% positive response because people do not understand this.
VISION: Will put the assessment on internet for free since we did not budget for this. The annual charge is $2200. We will have to budget for this next year.
SECONDARY:
· Various committee/board minutes
· Newsletters
· Review Police logs/reports
SIGN:
· Minutes
· Correspondence
· Payroll and Accounts Payable Manifests
There being no further business Mr. Methe moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:28 PM, Mr. Parker seconded, the motion passed 3-0.
| 
