April 15, 2010 Minutes

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

DATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Chairman.

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Bill Miskoe (BM), Chairman, Ted Mitchell (TM), Vice Chairman, Donald Chase (DC), Selectman Ex Officio, Rich Hunsberger (RH), Dan Schroth (DS), Pat Heffernan (PH), and Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate.

Members Absent

Daniel Greene (DG)

ITEM 8. WORK SESSION

(BM) Since Matt Monahan (MM), CNHRPC, is here, we are going to skip to Item 8 on the Agenda and we will cover the other items on the Agenda later in the meeting.

(MM) The information I have provided the Board includes the process to follow:

1. Read it and compare to Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations which has to be consistent throughout, such as definitions.

2. It should be noted that the Master Plan should be the guide.

3. I will come back and go over what we need to address such as definitions, process or whatever.

4. I need to know what this Board wants to see included. This is your document that you are presenting. What I find and what you want and find you would want to address may be different. I will be taking the Ordinances and creating a new document. After that is done, then the Board can go through it, make revisions and come up with a second draft. We will review, rewrite, redraft and then revise and hopefully be ready for Town Meeting.

5. Specific will be the scope of services and initially definitions, clean-up the flow including format and administration, review committed uses and make sure they are consistent with Master Plan, when needed provide language and any other changes required, review Town’s entire regulatory framework and making sure that there is no conflict between the Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations.

6. Temporary event ordinance would be a good tool to have in place so will put that in there.

7. Attending meetings will be necessary to keep updated.

Is there any one specific item in there you want to address? This is your document and Board can decide what is in there. The big picture is the flow and consistency which is all driven by Master Plan and anything you think you want to put in.

My advice is to keep it simple, straightforward and middle of the road if you can because this can be a tough process in any community. What does the Board think about this?

(BM) I should have tried to get the Board a bit together before Matt’s presentation. I believe our task between now and the end of November is to create revised Zoning Ordinances that we can take to the voters. There are three ways I see that we can do it:

1. Start with a blank sheet and just rewrite the Zoning Ordinances and have a document which has never been seen by the Town before.

2. Take the one we have and use it by fixing, updating, deleting and re-writing as necessary.

3. Look around and see if there is a Town much like ours in this State that has a brand new, really good Zoning Ordinance that we can revise to fit Pittsfield.

I do not think the first way is the way to go. It is re-inventing the wheel and a big waste of time. The second and third are pretty viable. So Board needs to be together on which way we are going to do this. At the end of all this, we should be coming out with an Ordinance we can take to the voters that will work for this Town now and five years from now, and will be ready for revision when the new Master Plan comes out in ten years. So, we do not just want to create Zoning Ordinances that only work for this year. We have to be forward thinking. That is what I see as our task. We not only have to create a Zoning Ordinance that will work for this Town now and for the next ten years, but also something that we can bring to the voters in March 2011 that they will understand and approve.

My own personal preference is to use the one we have in a new form because it is one the people are familiar with and one that the people will vote for. If we do, we have a better chance of getting our product adopted. He noted that in reality there is not a lot of time since rewrites, completion of the document and public hearings should all be completed by November.

(TM) noted that definitions should be a priority as well as simplicity and streamlining things – get rid of unnecessary “wordage.” Too much written into the definition is difficult to enforce, so why have it in there.

(MM) noted that some definitions which have been around for “centuries” are not specific enough in this day and age. (TM) Things have to be spelled out because Town is missing out on business opportunities.

(RH) I would like to see us eliminate the parking ordinance for downtown. It makes no sense because what you have for parking is what you’ve got and you want to encourage businesses to come into Town. Parking is what it is there. (TM) noted that even the according to State Law dedicated spaces are required for every establishment with singage on Route 28, and that would never happen in this Town.

(MM) noted that he was in agreement with Board on this. Parking for the future was not considered when downtown was designed because cars simply were not around. (RH) noted that there are buildings in the downtown area that could have been purchased but were not because of the parking issues. Therefore, buildings have become “not sellable” and we are watching the downtown deteriorate. You want to encourage these sales. (BM) I have said for years that from an economic development standpoint, I would be delighted if Pittsfield had a downtown parking problem because it would mean something is going on. (MM) explained that we need to take into account our physical constraints.

(BM) One more thing I would like to add is my personal view of how the Zoning Ordinances ought to be. He explained that he would like the Ordinances to be “user friendly” and to be interpreted the same by everyone. We should not have Zoning Ordinances which can only be understood by the people who have lived in Town for a lengthy period of time. (MM) We can note in the definitions that unless defined in the list that the “traditional” definition would apply. (BM) I am looking to rewrite the definitions so they are neither confusing nor obscure.

(DS) I think the Zoning Ordinances should include an elderly housing complex with mixed uses. I would like Matt to come in with a few proposals and suggestions of what we want for Pittsfield regarding elderly housing. I would also like for this Board to consider having this elderly housing question on the ballot so it stands alone. I think I would want to have a few “stand alone” items on the ballot.

(MM) I am going through the Master Plan now to determine the immediate needs for Town. We can make the new Zoning Ordinances streamlined and incorporate policies but if we have any big policy things, consideration should be given to putting them on as separate items.

(RH) I think that you are going to find that there are some items that should be struck out and if you do not replace these items then it is not going to be as controversial. (TM) suggested that any major changes be put on a list to be provided to public to advise them of what the changes are. (DS) Can we direct Matt to look at some other Town’s and come up with some suggestions of elderly housing and present it to us? (BM) Dan, I do not disagree with you, but we have to work our way through the list of definitions and include it in there.

(MM) Before I start writing the language, I think as a Board it is important to note that Board conceptually approves of what we are doing. Here’s the big concept and then refine it.

(CW) I want to note that I was not in favor of voting for this project. I think spending $17,500 without limiting the scope of this project is a complete waste of money. I do not know why the Town does not vote for the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinances. The citizen petition came the closest to being passed. I think the strategy we develop to put this together is more important. We put a lot of time putting these together and Town does not pass it. It is too complicated. I think strategy is crucial if we think we are going to get this passed. (BM) Do you agree with me that we need to revise the Zoning Ordinances? (CW) Yes, but I think the strategy…. (BM) I am just asking that now? (CW) noted it is critical to know what Town wants.

Board continued to express their ideas as to how complicated this process is going to be, which methods of revising/re-writing/re-inventing the Zoning Ordinances to follow, salesmanship, Board’s position on this endeavor, what is critical and the means by which this can be all accomplished and whether the Board is actually in favor of a revision. Ultimately, Board agreed that the Zoning Ordinances need to be “cleaned up”, and brought up-to-date but not totally re-written. Board resolved that Zoning Ordinances need to be amended to be consistent with 2010 Master Plan to serve Town for the next ten years. It is noted that the Master Plan is huge and that basically a few points will be addressed and priorities worked on.

(MM) reiterated that what the Zoning Ordinances does is communicate to the world – developers, citizens and everyone else – where our uses are in Town and deals with density. Policy ideas can be separate ballot items. He noted that the ideas generated by Master Plan can be put into place in increments year after year.

(MM) will be at the May 6th meeting regarding the pending Site Plan Review and then return on May 20th with some preliminary information on the Zoning Ordinances.

(PH) If he could look through the Ordinances, check what needs “tweaking” and come back with suggestions, this would be a start. (CW) noted that he would like to see this information dispersed prior to meeting to allow Board members time to review. Matt noted he would E-Mail information prior to meeting. Board agreed that this endeavor requires unity and backing by each Board member when presented to Town. (Dee will revise the contact list and make sure that all members have E-mails and etc.)

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of April 1, 2010

(DS) Motion to approve Minutes of April 1, 2010. (TM) Second.
Carried 6-0. (RH) Abstain.

ITEM 4. Selectman’s Report – Don Chase, Selectman Ex-Officio

None.

ITEM 5. Building Inspector Report

None.

(BM) The Building Inspector is not coming to meetings because of budget restrictions, but I will check with him periodically. (CW) Can he put a summary together in writing so we can be aware of any concerns he has? (BM) There may be times when it will be necessary for him to be here. (DC) His hours have been discussed by BOS and is was agreed that ten hours a week is not enough for Building Inspector and BOS is not restricting him from doing the job. (CW) As long as Bill talks to him and there are no objections, then it is okay for him not to be here.

ITEM 6. New Business

a. Bailey Park

(BM) This will be addressed at June 3rd meeting to allow Board to review documents.

b. Con-Lin-Ty, LLC

(BM) This is regarding the return of an escrow fund. An Affidavit will be provided which Board can approve for release of these funds.

ITEM 7. Members Concerns

(CW) At the BOS meeting, Hank’s resignation letter was accepted. Is it official? (PH) If you gave him some cool down time, I think he would come back. He is an asset to this Board. (BM) This Board does not recognize that letter of resignation. Until we hear from the BOS, he is still on the Board. He is a great asset to Board. (TM) We should emphasize to Hank that the Planning Board wants him to stay because of his experience. He wants to help Town and we want him on Board.

(DC) I honestly did not question it when it came up before the BOS. He should have resigned from this Board not the BOS. (CW) I think he adds value to this Board. My issue was that the BOS was not within their jurisdiction to accept his resignation. They should have sent it to us. Board agreed. It was noted that if he would like to return to Board, he did not need to re-apply.

(DS) How much did the Town’s re-valuation come in as? (BM) It has not yet been decided. I think it is about 15-20%.

(PH) The Pittsfield Weaving property got sold the other day. How is that going to affect us? (BM) My understanding is that Pittsfield Weaving does not own the building which is owned by Windwalker – a family-run business. (TM) Pittsfield Weaving will be renting from new owner and new owner moving into the rest of space, I believe. (BM) noted that Pittsfield Weaving holds some interesting licenses on inventory control devices.
(TM) The business which may move in is a distribution center type business. (BM) Do you know if they will be hiring people? (TM) Most likely, yes. (DC) It is not Pittsfield Weaving but Pittsfield ID.

ITEM 9. Public Input

(BM) We have one gentleman sitting in the audience. An individual in the audience (name unknown) noted he would like to be an Alternate.
(BM) explained what is required of an Alternate and suggested he fill out an application, which he said he would do.

ITEM 10. Adjournment

(DC) Motion to adjourn. (TM) Second. Carried 7-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:21 P.M.

Approved: June 3, 2010

___________________________ ____________________
John W. Miskoe, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were transcribed by me on and publicly posted on May 27, 2010.

________________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

I Tape