Town of Carroll, New Hampshire

• Town Services
• Town Meeting Minutes
• Planning Board/ZBA
• Applications & Forms
• Town Clerk/Tax Collector
• Map
• Home

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• Select Board
• Budget Committee
• Building Committee
• Energy Commission

Minutes of 8/3/2017 APPROVED

August 17th, 2017

Town of Carroll Building Committee Meeting Minutes
August 3, 2017 @ 9:00 a.m.
Carroll Town Hall

Members and guests present: Tadd Bailey, Allan Clark, Mike Finn, John Gardiner, Brad Houston, Jeremy Oleson, Terry Penner, Peter Stewart, and Imre Szauter

The Building Committee (the “Committee”) meeting began at 9:04 a.m. and was recorded.

Attendees stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

A draft agenda was distributed and a sign-in sheet was routed around.

Attendees introduced themselves.

The draft minutes of the July 27, 2017 meeting were discussed. John Gardiner made a motion, seconded by Mike Finn, to approve the minutes as written. The vote in favor was unanimous.

Imre Szauter provided an update on the July 31st Committee report to the Select Board. By unanimous vote, the Select Board adopted the recommendation of the Committee to contract with Stewart Associates Architects LLC for architectural services for Phase One of the public safety and administrative offices project.

Allan Clark introduced Peter Stewart, principal at Stewart Associates Architects LLC of Laconia, and welcomed him as the architect for Phase One of the Town of Carroll public safety and administrative offices facility project. Peter Stewart will be asked to provide schematic floor plans and conceptual elevations based on the preliminary specifications (about 85% complete) from Allan Clark. These items are necessary to develop a solid cost estimation for the complete project and will be used as part of the Committee’s marketing campaign and during the town deliberative session in February 2018.

Allan Clark stated that Peter Stewart would like to meet with each department head following the Committee meeting to visit their current facility, review current and future needs listed in the June 1, 2017 Preliminary Space Requirements and Cost Predictions document, and discuss adjacencies and special requirements of spaces within each department. Allan Clark mentioned that Peter Stewart will also develop a rough master plan for the current 13-acre property, so that future uses for community and recreational purposes can be considered.

Peter Stewart thanked the Committee for selecting him as the architect for Phase One and opened a discussion on his proposed work, outlining how he intends to proceed. He stated that using the document Allan Clark created and information he gathers from department heads, he will develop a spreadsheet with information such as total square footage for each department, room sizes and adjacencies, and any special requirements for review and approval by the department heads. Once approved, Peter Stewart will develop and submit floor plans for review and approval. These approved floor plans will be used by Allan Clark for cost estimation purposes and become part of the Committee information package to the voters.

Peter Stewart suggested members gather around his table to view the topographical survey and discuss the pros and cons of one building versus two for housing public safety services and administrative offices. He stated that in his opinion, a town is identified by its Town Hall. Therefore, having a building dedicated to town services other than public safety (police, fire and EMS departments) is useful in creating a positive image for the town.

Allan Clark and Peter Stewart explained that cost and code issues for each department’s needs differ, and that it may be more practical and cost-effective to construct two separate buildings, one for public safety services (police, fire and EMS) and the other for administrative and community functions. Different code use groups, especially for the police and fire departments, make separation of safety services from community services a better implementation approach.

All attendees agreed that a two building approach makes more sense and henceforth, discussions will refer to a public safety building and a Town Hall as the two structures for planning purposes.

Peter Stewart asked if the community room concept was envisioned as part of the Town Hall or the public safety building. Imre Szauter outlined the Committee’s previous discussions on the functions a community room would accommodate, including meetings of the Select Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals; voting activities; town deliberative sessions; and other activities. Allan Clark clarified that the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) would require a separate functional area, likely within the fire department portion of the public safety building, while a community room could serve as a temporary shelter for residents during a declared emergency. The EOC and the temporary shelter should be separated so there is no interaction between the two functions.

Peter Stewart stated that the topology of the 13 acre town parcel, the wetland area along US 3, and the less-sloped terrain near the existing Town Hall suggest the project should be constructed on the western side of the parcel. Site excavation costs could be reduced and future recreational opportunities enhanced if the eastern portion of the parcel was left undisturbed for now. A master plan for the entire parcel could include options for this area.

Peter Stewart asked about the future of the current Town Hall. Imre Szauter outlined the options presented at the June 22nd informational session: 1) do nothing with it; 2) sale to private party or group for another use or; 3) demolition and reuse of the 0.87 acre parcel of land.

Using cardboard cutouts on a translucent material overlay on the topographical survey, Peter Stewart suggested several placement and orientation options for a public safety building, a Town Hall, and several possible future structures, such as a stand-alone library and community center, in a park-like or campus setting. He sketched a cul-de-sac around which the buildings could be placed, with green space in the center of the one-way traffic area at the end of the driveway.

John Gardiner provided a brief history of the southeast corner of the parcel, particularly how the state rerouted the river during the construction of the current US 3 and US 302 intersection. He stated that a hotel once occupied the area where the intersection is now located and the former swimming pool, while overgrown with vegetation and collapsing, is still visible on the north side of School Street across from the gazebo. A large culvert and water supply lines pass under School Street in that area. John Gardiner stated that the water supply lines had been updated.

Allan Clark mentioned that water supply pressure and flow testing at the hydrant near Town Hall had been attempted earlier in the week, but the test could not be completed due to defective equipment. The test will be rescheduled after the contractor repairs or replaces the equipment. Based on his experience and what he saw from several photographs, he doesn’t believe pressure and/or flow to a new public safety building and Town Hall will be an issue.

John Gardiner suggested that making the public safety building and Town Hall visible from the US 3 and US 302 intersection could enhance the image of the town, particularly to visitors headed north on US 3 and turning onto eastbound US 302 toward the Village of Bretton Woods. Referring to an earlier discussion about potential recreational activities on the eastern portion of the parcel, John Gardiner suggested that area might be appropriate for future development with community support. He suggested attendees view the Twin Mountain - Bretton Woods Historical Society website [http://www.twinmountain.com/historical.php] for photos and descriptions of structures and facilities that once occupied the parcel now owned by the town.

Allan Clark suggested that rehabilitating the eastern portion of the parcel for recreational uses might be of interest to the community, particularly if the wetlands area was cleaned up and made accessible for public use.

Imre Szauter asked if access to US 302 was preferable to US 3 for ingress/egress of public safety vehicles. Jeremy Oleson commented that previous plans for development of the parcel would have required extensive site preparation and incurred high costs for access to US 3. In addition, regulations governing wetlands might make it cost-prohibitive or practically impossible to do so today.

Peter Stewart asked if the town desired a drive-through fire department apparatus bay. Jeremy Oleson said that while a drive-through configuration would be preferable, it is not mandatory. Allan Clark mentioned that placement and dispatch of firefighting vehicles doesn’t always allow returning equipment to utilize a drive-through configuration. If vehicles are positioned such that they depart the apparatus bay from the front and the rear, dispatch time can be saved but returning vehicles may still have to be backed into their storage locations.

Mike Finn asked if the current firefighting vehicle inventory can adequately serve the Omni Mount Washington Resort in an emergency, to which Jeremy Oleson replied that it could not. Future plans for the fire department include the possible acquisition of a ladder truck, necessitating any planned apparatus bay be of sufficient length to accommodate a 50 foot vehicle. A double-depth or drive-through apparatus bay greater than 100 feet long would provide for this possibility.

Peter Stewart stated that a properly-designed campus setting would place a priority on public safety vehicle ingress/egress, likely resulting in one-way traffic flow and restricted parking around the public safety building. Jeremy Oleson suggested that an apron of at least 50 feet in front of the apparatus bay would allow outdoor placement of any vehicle and control parking.

John Gardiner mentioned incorporating alternative energy sources, specifically solar arrays, in the campus concept plans. Peter Stewart stated that ground-mounted solar arrays could be placed in multiple locations on the parcel without significantly impacting other uses. Allan Clark offered that ground-mounted solar arrays might be incorporated in the area where the storm water retention basin would be constructed, as opposed to roof-mounted solar arrays, which may require roof penetrations.

Terry Penner asked about using geothermal technology to reduce building energy costs. Allan Clark replied that although they did not utilize geothermal technology when they designed and constructed the Franconia Public Safety Building, they did include provisions for its addition at a later date. The same could be done here, although a tight building envelope would significantly reduce the heating and cooling demands placed on an HVAC system and make geothermal technology less attractive cost-wise.

Imre Szauter asked Peter Stewart if he envisioned a decision on the fate of the current Town Hall before proceeding with the campus concept plan. He explained the attachment of some residents to Town Hall and their desire to see it remain either in its current capacity or repurposed for another use. The issue of continued administrative services during construction of a new facility must also be addressed. Either the current Town Hall remains in place while a new facility is constructed or administrative services would require temporary relocation if the current Town Hall was razed before construction began.

John Gardiner reminded attendees that the snow mobile trail that traverses the property must be addressed in the plan.

Allan Clark suggested that Peter Stewart could create two renderings that show one plan with and the other plan without the current Town Hall in place. These drawings would allow voters to visualize the difference and decide whether the current Town Hall, even if renovated and repurposed, really fits in with the future direction of the town. Peter Stewart agreed to do so.

Imre Szauter asked about the setback requirements that apply to the parcel. Peter Stewart measured the line on the topographical survey and estimated the setback at 40 feet. He stated he would verify the setback requirements in the town’s zoning ordinance with Allan Clark.

Imre Szauter asked about parking space requirements for the public safety building and the Town Hall. Peter Stewart replied that he would check on the number of required spaces, which is based on the capacity of the building and the function(s) it supports.

Imre Szauter asked about the status of School Street, once the driveway to the new campus is installed. Discussion regarding keeping it open versus barricading it followed. John Gardiner suggested keeping the road open and adding speed bumps that could be removed for winter snow plowing operations. Jeremy Oleson stated that the culvert under School Street may be undermined and may require repair at town expense. It was also suggested that School Street remain open during the construction phase and be reevaluated for continued use afterwards.

Imre Szauter stated that Peter Stewart would like to meet individually with department heads following adjournment of the meeting to visit their current facilities, review the space requirements document created by Allan Clark, and discuss any other concerns or needs they may have. All department heads indicated they would be available after the meeting.

Imre Szauter provided an update on the August 1st hydrant pressure and flow test at the School Street property. Along with Public Works Supervisor Greg Hogan and Scott Sonia, he witnessed as a representative of the EJP (Everett J. Prescott) Inc. tried but failed to get an accurate water flow reading. The representative determined the gage was faulty and will reschedule the test with Greg Hogan when the gage is repaired or replaced.

Imre Szauter commented that the Kellogg Surveying and Mapping Inc. invoice for the School Street topographical survey was greater than anticipated, so the Select Board indicated that the Committee should evaluate its budget for covering the difference. Allan Clark commented that there was money in the budget to cover surveyor expenses, so he suggested that the Committee recommend to the Select Board using those funds.

A motion was made by Mike Finn, seconded by John Gardiner, to recommend to the Select Board that Committee funds be used to cover the difference between the estimated invoice cost and the final invoice cost from Kellogg Surveying and Mapping Inc. Following a brief discussion, the vote in favor of passage was unanimous.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion under “Other”, and asked if anyone had any other issues they would like to discuss. Peter Stewart stated that he would consult with Allan Clark about getting feedback from a civil engineer about setbacks and road entrances. Allan Clark stated he would research the town’s zoning ordinance to determine what restrictions might apply to the project.

Mike Finn asked if there was any state involvement needed on the project. Allan Clark stated that a driveway permit would be required for the new campus, as it would intersect with US 302. An alteration of terrain permit would be required, as more than 100,000 square feet of land would be impacted by the project. State approval would also be required for the new septic system design and installation.

Imre Szauter reviewed the two accounts used by the Committee. The balance in the Committee expense account was $1,948 of the $2,500 allocated. Expenditures from that account covered advertising for the two information sessions. The balance of the warrant article account was $57,743.75 of the $60,000 allocated. The budget provided by Allan Clark indicated that with careful oversight, Phase One expenses could come in under budget.

Imre Szauter summarized current action items:
1) Posting approved July 27th Committee meeting minutes on the town website and Google Drive (Imre Szauter)
2) Deliver the Committee’s recommendation to Select Board on August 14th regarding the balance on the Kellogg Surveying and Mapping Inc. topographical survey invoice (Imre Szauter)
3) Rescheduling of hydrant pressure and flow testing with EJP (Greg Hogan)




The next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for Thursday, August 17 at 9:00 a.m. in Town Hall.

Terry Penner made a motion, seconded by John Gardiner, to adjourn the meeting. The vote to adjourn was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned at 10:08 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Imre Szauter.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024