Rooster's owners will appeal, say 'Pecker' is an in-house pet, not 'agriculture'

LACONIA — Cuddling their pet rooster in their arms, Jeffrey and Bridgette Leroux said yesterday that the family will appeal the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to deny the variance that would enable "Pecker" to remain in their home on North Street in Lakeport.

In December, when a next door neighbor complained about the rooster crowing, the Planning Department told the Lerouxs that the zoning ordinance prohibited the keeping of poultry in a residential district and advised them that they would either have to give up the rooster or apply for a variance.

Planning Director Shanna Saunders explained that the zoning ordinance defines "agriculture" as "the production, keeping or maintenance for sale, lease or personal use, of plants and animals," including poultry, and forbids agriculture uses of property in residential districts like North Street.

The Lerouxs insist "Pecker" is simply a pet who lives in the house. The zoning ordinance defines as "an animal from which profit may not be generated from the sale, traditionally, of its fur, eggs, flesh, feathers, edible portion or services, with the exception of mating." Jeffrey Leroux confessed that he offered "Pecker" to a neighbor wishing to add to his flock of chickens, but the rooster, intimidated by the sheer size of the hens, begged off.

"He is nothing but a pet," he said, adding that there would be no issue if they were keeping a parrot.

To appeal the ZBA's decision, the Lerouxs must first request a rehearing and if the board denies their request or reaffirms its original decision, they can then appeal for relief to the Belknap County Superior Court.

ZBA chair questions strengthening historic demolition ordinance before inventory

LACONIA — When the Heritage Commission presented its recommendations for amending the demolition ordinance to protect historic properties to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) on Monday night, Steve Bogert, chairman of the board, questioned the wisdom of applying the ordinance without an inventory of the properties that would be subject to it.

The Heritage Commission seeks to amend the demolition ordinance to apply to a greater number of properties and allow more time to explore alternatives to demolition. While the original ordinance applied to buildings 75 years old and older, the amendment would reduce the age of significant buildings to 50 years. At the same time, a provision of the original ordinance requiring that the property be visible from a public street would be stricken.

The ordinance would apply to "significant buildings," which it defines by four criteria. A significant building must be one with features and qualities meeting the national or state standards for "a historical, cultural or architectural landmark." Buildings constructed to an uncommon design with unusual materials that could only be reproduced at great expense would also qualify. The ordinance would also extend to buildings of such architectural value or historic interest that their demolition would be adverse to the public interest as well as to buildings whose preservation would preserve a place of historic character and value.

The ordinance would be triggered when a property owner applied to demolish a building, at which point the Heritage Commission would determine if it qualified as a "significant building".

Bogert asked if the commission had a list of "significant buildings" and, on learning it did not, expressed concern that property owners would not learn that their properties were subject to the ordinance before acquiring them. The ordinance authorizes the Heritage Commission, with the consent of the City Council, to delay razing a "significant building" for more than 180 days while alternatives to demolition are explored and pursued.

Bogert suggested that "significant buildings" should be identified, inventoried and designated, perhaps on the tax card, so that prospective buyers would know the properties are subject to the ordinance before acquiring one. He said the status of the property would be discovered in the course of due diligence.

Pam Clark, who chairs the Heritage Commission, told the board that $500 has been budgeted for a stipend for an intern who could begin surveying properties this summer. However, she cautioned that with such sparse resources the commission was not able to prepare the kind of inventory Bogert envisioned.

Planning Director Shanna Saunders said that the proposal is modeled on ordinances adopted by municipalities elsewhere in New Hampshire and New England.

Despite Bogert's reservations, the ZBA endorsed the commission's proposal, which will be forwarded to the City Council. Bogert expected the council to hold a public hearing and said "I would hope the that the real estate community will show up and contribute to the discussion."

Belmont writes off $182k worth of bad debt from ambulance-run fees

BELMONT — This town's Fire Department may be the first in New Hampshire to switch its ambulance-run billing company from Comstar to Enhanced Management, Inc. a limited liability company based in Pennsylvania.

As part of the switch, selectmen also voted reluctantly to "write off" as noncollectable, $180,898.22 in past due bills — an amount that has been accumulating for years.

As it stands now, Belmont, like most communities in New Hampshire, use Comstar — a Mass.-based company that subcontracts billing for ambulance service in a community. The billing rate is set by the individual community and those rates are typically based on Medicare and Medicaid payment schedules.

Fire Chief Dave Parenti and Administrator Jeanne Beaudin told selectmen on Monday that their recommendation to switch billing providers stems from what they consider a chronically low collection rate of about 67-percent — meaning Comstar collects 67-percent of what the town is owed in ambulance fees.

Comstar has been charging Belmont 5 percent of the amount collected — a fee that was 6.5-percent, according to Parenti, but which was negotiated down after he became chief five years ago.

The new billing company, Enhanced, charges 8 percent but has told administrators that with its enhanced technology to find and bill many of the people who are delinquent, the amount it collects annually will offset the $5,081 in additional fees the town can expect to pay.

To do this, Enhanced would have to increase the collection rate of 67 percent to 69 percent. Other local communities have said that Comstar collects on average between 67- and 70-percent of ambulance fees billed.

Up until now, Belmont selectmen have been reluctant to "write off" the ever accumulating amount of money that goes uncollected by the town for ambulance billings. A few months ago, Parenti reported that Comstar uses a secondary bill collector called FFR for the so-called "dead beat" accounts but its collections rates are miniscule at best.

One of the key problems, identified by Parenti in previous meetings, is that Comstar bills the insurer for the money but then often sends the claim check to the patient.

Enhanced has said it would send bills to insurers as well as notices to customers reminding them that they are responsible for the balance not paid by their insurer. He added that Enhance will work with customers to set up payment accounts and will accept credit cards — something Comstar doesn't do.

Parenti estimates that on average each ambulance run costs about $1,100 and between $400 and $500 of it is reimbursable by Medicaid or Medicare. He said the collection percentages from private insurers is much higher. The balance remains the obligation of the patient.

Selectman Jon Pike agreed with the new approach but asked Parenti to keep the board up-to-date on the delinquent billings and not let them grow to the point where they reach nearly $200,000.

Parenti reminded Pike that he was the one who first brought the uncollectables to the board's attention when he first came to Belmont but the board then was averse to writing off the past dues as bad debt.

With Monday's vote, Parenti said he will begin with Enhance after giving Comstar appropriate notice.

2 women congratulated for completing daunting Recovery Court program

LACONIA — Melissa Winsor and Crystal Boisvert finished a two-and half-year long quest to get sober when they graduated together from Recovery Count yesterday.

But with their certificates and their sobriety, both move forward knowing their fellow students, the community, and all the people who donated their time to the state's only non-government funded "drug court" program will be there with them.

"Melissa, Crystal," said keynote speaker Alida Millham of Gilford, "You are to be congratulated."

Millham, a former state representative and chair of the Belknap County delegation, said she's seen a lot of changes in her years and Recovery Court is one of the best of them.

"This will prepare you for the next steps of your life," she said.

Millham told them that the five key things she has seen them show is "opportunity" to take advantage of a program that could help them changes their lives, "commitment" for participating and making though the hard and challenging times, "responsibility" for owning up to their past lives and embracing their new lives, "patience" for persevering knowing it wouldn't be easy, and "resiliency" for facing their lives ahead knowing all the road blocks it will bring.

Piloted by 4th Circuit Court Judge Jim Carroll, Public Defender Jessie Friedman, Laconia City Prosecutor Jim Sawyer, and Jacqui Abikoff of Horizons Counseling Center in 2012, Recovery Court was soon embraced by other members of the corrections community including County Attorney Melissa Guldbrandsen, the Department of Probation and Parole, Belknap County Corrections Supervisor Daniel Ward, Genesis Behavioral Health, Brian Loanes of Restorative Justice and other community partners.

To qualify for Recovery Court, a person has to be charged with a serious crime and admit that drug addiction has led them to their low spot. If they complete the program the underlying charge is wiped clean.

Winsor is the mother of four who began the Recovery Court when it began and learned she was pregnant. Judge Carroll said she had her setbacks along the way but each time brought herself and her son James back to the group.

"I'll miss you and James," said Carroll as he held James, now a toddler, while Winsor accepted her certificate from Abikoff.

While she was too overcome to speak, Boisvert wasn't.

"This was one of the hardest things I ever had to do," she said.

"I'm not proud of some of the mistakes I've made but now I like myself and who I am today," she added.

Boisvert will continue as a mentor, occasionally teaching a class to other Recovery Court members about cognitive behavior.

Abikoff said that early on Boisvert slipped but soon got back on the road to recovery. She was asked to create and teach a class about congitive behavior for when she returned to the group session the next week.

"She came back with a plan, a back-up plan and a back-up plan for the back-up plan," said Abikoff, noting she had also outlined three different ways to teach her assigned subject to her peers in case the first two ways didn't work.

A special recognition was also given to Judge Willard "Bud" Martin who has helped recovery court financially.

Carroll asked for people in the community to consider Recovery Court as part of their own mission. He said volunteers are welcome, contributions are needed, and for those business people who can, he asked them to consider Recovery Court graduates for jobs.