APRIL 16, 2009 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2009

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Gerard Leduc, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Gerard Leduc (GL), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice Chairman, Fred Hast (FH), Selectman Ex Officio, Daniel Greene (DG), Jim Pritchard (JP), Dan Schroth (DS), Ted Mitchell (TM), Alternate, Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger, (RH).

Clayton Wood, (Alternate), please be seated on the Board.

ITEM 3. Continued Public Hearing for application for a Site Plan Review for construction of a proposed 5,000 sq. ft. dry storage building at 84 Barnstead Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R15, Lot 26). The property is owned by Joseph Darrah, 95 Will Smith Road, Barnstead, NH 03218. Carl Sherblom, 67 Mountain Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 represents the applicant.

(BM) Motion to approve application as complete. (DS) Second.

Mr. Sherblom: I simply took the drawing and doubled it in size. Plans have, otherwise, not changed from the last time. There are a few issues concerning drainage along the stone retaining wall, which he explained to Board. (BM) Has the NH DOT looked at excess drainage? Mr. Sheblom: They have done that already and are very happy with it. The wetlands are not impacted at all. Mr. Sherblom and Board discussed lighting on utility pole.

(BM) All we are talking about now is if the application is complete, not the merits. Is it ready to go to the next step? (GL) to the Building Inspector, Have all abutters been notified? BI: “Yes, all abutters and Departments Heads as well. None of the Department Heads had issues.” The Fire Department does not have issues with the building as submitted, but will later which will be discussed with the BI. (FH) The Highway and Sewage Departments are not affected.

(JP) noted that regarding the sign and according to the Zoning Ordinances, would need special exception according to Article 9. I do not know if you can say the application is complete; he cannot get final approval until he has that. Also, the driveway permit, has he gotten a new one since last week? Mr. Darrah noted that he has the application and it is all set. “If the sign is an issue, I will take the sign off and deal with that later.”

(JP) noted that he had discussed the driveway permit with Mark Morrill, David Silvia, and Susan Soucie of the NH Department of Transportation on April 8th. They noted that what Mr. Darrah has proposed in his site plan is “not going to work.” Drainage and ice are a problem. (BM) That would come up in the merits. He noted that this would be between the applicant and the State. (JP) “I am not sure about that.” (FH) It is a State issue. (BM) From a functional standpoint, we do not get involved in that.
(GL) The question is moot.

Vote 7-0.

Mr. Sherblom and the Board further discussed paved areas, lights on building, drainage and water concentration and grading in this area.

(JP) noted that there was a large disconnect between what was discussed tonight and his meeting with DOT last week. The DOT drew a picture (attached), which unequivocally notes that there has to be a catch basis at the bottom. Mr. Darrah, “You legally can’t, it is State Property.”

(BM) Motion to approve application (Joseph Darrah) as submitted. (DS) Second.

Discussion: Board discussed water lines coming into property and the purpose (heating), choice of fuel (propane – radiant heat) and storage thereof, purpose of the heating, and catch basin. (FH) The size of the catch basin would be up to the State of New Hampshire. (JP) There is a drainage issue. “I would like to hear your rebuttal.” Mr. Sherblom noted, “I think it has been corrected.” (FH) It would be subject to the State to propose that.

(BM) I think we are losing site of what we are trying to do. The State and the owner have to work it out. We can approve it contingent on that all State and environmental issues have to be met. (JP) Are you saying that an ice problem on Route 107 is not our problem? (BM) No, it is not our concern; it would have to be dealt with by the State. We would vote on what is our jurisdiction. I am convinced that the State of New Hampshire will deal
with it.

Public Input

Pat Heffernan: This is a project that we should be approving. It is what EDC is looking to do and it makes perfect sense to taxpayers. There generally would be no impact to fire, police or school and would generate revenue. Where it is located is the gateway to the community. It would polish up that corner and would be something people would see when coming into Town. He hires local people and would be an economic stimulus. I would not want to see him move to Barnstead.

Mark Riel: Mr. Darrah has already addressed the light issue. The drainage issues – my house was flooded, but I trust the State will take care of that issue and I do not think it is from Joey’s property. Whatever he does will be done correctly.

(JP) In response to Bill’s comment about the State, three engineers I talked to think it is unwise and recommended plan not be approved. They noted, “It will not work.” (DS) Let’s say there is a drainage problem it is not something worth stopping approval. (JP) You are mistaken. You do not understand. It would create a road hazard. (BM) The State Department has not made any formal comments to this Board. They can send advisory letter. It is unreasonable to hold it up. (DG) There may be pollution going down to the river and we should not overlook that. (DS) What kind of pollution? (DG) Antifreeze or oil. Mr. Sherblom: Are you saying oil coming from cars parked there? Isn’t that true on all highways? (DG) Others put in retention ponds to catch that. (JP) The driveway permit you have right now is a gravel driveway. (FH) If there is a problem, it is a problem for the State of New Hampshire.

(BM) I withdraw my Motion. (DS) I withdraw my Second.

(BM) Motion to approve application (Joseph Darrah) conditional upon all State requirements being met. (DS) Second.

(JP) I would like to specifically add that he gets a State driveway permit for this land. I am suggesting your motion be changed. (BM) I will leave motion as stated. (DG) asked whether there would be any equipment washed on site? Mr. Darrah said “No.”

Vote: Carried 5-2 (JP) and (DG) opposed.

(BM) explained the thirty-day appeal process. Anyone in Town has the right to bring an appeal to Merrimack Superior Court. On a Site Plan Review, it can be just about anyone.

(JP) I would like it part of the Minutes the DOT comments and map as distributed to Board members. He explained his reasons for his vote. “I believe the DOT’s evaluation that the plan will cause icing on State highway, Route 107, and I believe that the water input will likely be used for something other than the boiler when there is no septic system.” (BM) noted that the approval notes “all State requirements being met” so it is moot at this point. (FH) Jim mentioned about the sign. (JP) It was taken off the plans. (DS) Why can’t he have a sign? (BM) Let him go through this with the BI. (FH) As I recall, a sign would be allowed if it were within setbacks. What is the question about the sign? Building Inspector: Signs are permissible in Light Commercial Zone as long as not offensive. I spoke to the Zoning Board Chair and he did not see an issue. (JP) Zoning Board does not have jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. (He read Article 9 to the Board.) The Zoning Board has rendered a decision? (BM) Only if someone makes a complaint. I do not hear that it states it requires a special exception. (JP) It does not have to – it does not have to use the words “special exception.” Article 9 defines a special exception. (BM) Let the Zoning Board decide. (JP) It is not their jurisdiction.

ITEM 4. Approval of Minutes of April 2, 2009.

(DG) Motion to approve Minutes as amended by Jim Pritchard.
(JP) Second.

Discussion: (JP) noted that because of the “complaint” lodged against Fred Hast, I felt detailed Minutes would be helpful so that he could get a fair hearing.

Board briefly discussed the changes in Minutes as presented by Jim Pritchard.

(FH) suggested Board table these Minutes until next meeting. (BM) agreed. Board agreed that they would do this though (JP) and (DS) abstained from this suggestion.

ITEM 5. New Business
a. Letter Re: Fred Hast

(GL) This is a letter that I sent to the Board of Selectman with a question pertaining to a statement made by (FH). (DS) Do you want to get rid of him or what? (FH) Who authored this letter? (GL) I did. Are you making an accusation that I had help? (FH) The main crux is that the letter never should have gone to the BOS. Anything that goes out should first be approved by Planning Board before it goes out. (JP) “Why? I am absolutely confused why he can’t make a complaint.” (FH) It should have come from the Planning Board. (JP) The Board of Selectman has jurisdiction. The Board of Selectman requested feedback from the Planning Board. This was inappropriate. (FH) I was trying to get this through a new Board, but the letter should never have gone out. (BM) It is unfortunate that (GL) signed it as Planning Board Chairman. He did not discuss this with any other Board members.

(GL) It is my opinion. Three other Board members said that it was illegal. (JP) I am confused. Is it because BOS wants us to do it, or because you want to?

Linda Small (LS), Chairman, Board of Selectman: It came to the BOS and I had requested (GL) take it back to the PB for their consensus and then come back to the BOS. (JP) Why do you think the PB should comment on this? The BOS decision was improper since we are talking about a PB member. Is it because the person signed it as Chairman that it is not credible? That would not be your decision. (LS) The letter should come from the PB and the PB should be able to come to some determination. There would be no further feedback from the Board without this. (JP) You cannot speak for the Board. (LS) As Chairman, I can. (JP) said that a decision to or not to remove a PB member requires a vote of the full BOS. (LS) As Chair, I can speak for the board. Are you telling me I should be quiet about this? (LS) Thank you for your advice. (JP) repeated his inquiry to (LS) about this and (LS) repeated her response.

(BM) Board did not authorize letter. (FH) “Who are the three Board members that you mentioned that thought it was not legal?” (GL) did not respond but noted, “I will not put this Board at risk?” (FH) We continued it and that should be the end of it. Again, I spoke to the attorney and he agreed it should go forward. “What did I do that was illegal?” My name has been brought up before this Planning Board and the Board of Selectman.
(BM) Gerard, just withdraw your letter. (GL) I withdraw my letter.
(BM) It should not have happened. Just let it go.

b. Letter – Rich Hunsberger

(BM) I see Rich Hunsberger is coming back in May.

ITEM 6. Selectman’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

(FH) Board has discussed Pennichuck and eminent domain. (DM) noted that BOS also had questions regarding the Charrette.

ITEM 7. Building Inspector Report

Building Inspector (BI) related he had been requested to contact (DS) regarding dereliction of duties, which is a moot point since Mr. Schroth is seated on the Board tonight.

I have also taken the liberty of revising Department Heads sign-off forms so that they would be completed at least five days prior to a hearing for distribution to Board members. Department Heads are able to come in and look at the plans prior to signing off.

(JP) This form notes that Board members can make comments. A Board member is different than a Department Head. Board members should not discuss before it is brought to public hearing. Every person coming to hearing could see it. (FH) Why fifteen days? Plans are in the office and in our boxes. Board members comments would not be necessary as we can comment here. (BI) noted that this was just a “suggested form.”
(BM) noted that Board is restricted from discussing it with each other, but can discuss with involved Department Heads.

(JP) So you agree that Board members comments should be there. What is the difference between writing notes and discussing it? (BI) noted that the purpose was not to change protocol as plans are here fifteen days prior to hearing.

c. CNHRPC Representative

(GL) The CNHRPC has requested that two representative be chosen.
(FH) We could put ad in paper and get interested parties. Gerard is still on this. (GL) They meet once a quarter. We could put ad in the paper and put on Town Website. I would like to stay on as PB representative. (Clayton Wood took note that this would be put on Website.)

d. DOT Hearing

(GL) The DOT hearing is scheduled for April 29th at 7:00 P.M. at Town Hall regarding Leavitt Road.

e. Letter Energy and Planning

(GL) The Dept. of Energy and Planning has responded regarding our inquiry about “windmills.” (Letter was given directly to (JP) – no copies available.)

f. Traffic Counts

(DG) What about the traffic counts? (PB did not provide any data to CNHRPC regarding traffic counts. Deadline date has passed and other departments have submitted suggestions.)

g. Zoning Ordinances Amendments

(JP) I would like the notes from DOT be included in tonight’s Minutes.

What about the Citizen Petition – Zoning Ordinances? (GL) It will be discussed next time. Board can review prior to that Work Session.
(CW) will obtain copy from website and (TM) will be provided a paper copy for their review.)

(BM) The first Thursday of the month is usually reserved for Board business and the third Thursday for Work Sessions. We usually do not schedule Work Sessions on the first Thursday. (JP) Is there any reason why we cannot do it tonight? It is only 8:30 P.M. (BM) This is up the Chairman. (GL) noted it would be addressed later in meeting.

h. Dan Schroth’s Absences

(BM) Dan noted that he “would not be back until Board followed the Constitution.” Does that mean that the Board is following the Constitution now? (DS) I am here to help the applicants. We all took an oath to uphold State Law. Do you have to read it again to understand it? On Page 39, Article 38 it notes to protect our freedom. I do not want to serve with people who do not follow the law. (CW) What is your point? (DS) When we get a Board such as this, you do not give people justice. (CW) I am trying to understand your point. Where does it say we have to read it? (DS) You should read it and apply it. I believe I can tell if one has read it or not. (FH) I am trying to apply the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board. (CW) noted Board should be following Rules of Procedure. Board continued to discuss the State Constitution versus the Rules of Procedure.

i. Other

(JP) I have a comment which I would like stated in the Minutes. “It has been said that watching this Board is like watching Gilligan’s Island.” At the last meeting (GL) asked everyone to take about fifteen minutes and prepare for discussing Citizen Petition Zoning Ordinances. How many of you happened to prepare for this? (BM) I did some, but I am not finished.

(CW) Are we going to have Minutes this long every meeting? Minutes this long add nothing to the purpose of Minutes. What is normal?
(JP) explained that he felt that the added detail was necessary because of the complaint against Fred Hast.

A brief discussion ensued regarding the role of the Planning Board as an autonomous board and administration versus enforcement.

(BM) This is not really a work session. (JP) We agreed to take up some of it tonight. In the Zoning Ordinances we have Table 3 – Minimum Parking Requirements but it does not say how it was computed. What does it mean? How do we know? (BM) noted it refers to Structures and Land Uses. (JP) No, you are missing the point. (BM) It does not say on site. After further discussion, (BM) noted that the Zoning Ordinances cannot be written to cover every single item. That is why we have a Zoning Board. (JP) What standard is being used?

(GL) It is now 9:00 P.M. and we have discussed this long enough. (FH) This has been discussed in the past with reference to rental apartments.

ITEM 9. Public Input

Pat Heffernan: Thank you for passing the application for Joseph Darrah. You guys pretty well whipped this.

Is there some kind of flowchart that says what an individual has to do if he wants to do …… or …….in writing? If there isn’t, there should be. The steps should be itemized to allow them to know how they are to proceed with a particular project. (BM) No, it is sometimes difficult to determine which Board they would need to present to first. We do not have a procedure but rewriting the Zoning Ordinances should take care of that.
Mr. Heffernan: Is it written down somewhere? (TM) A person should be able to get a checklist. (BI) indicated that he is attempting to put together something like this. (GL) requested that another copy of this be put in PB members files for future Work Session.

Mr. Darrah: I just wanted you all to know that Kyle has been very good to me and I would like to thank him.

ITEM 10. Adjournment

(DG) Motion to adjourn. (DS) Second. After Discussion: Carried 7-0.

(GL) The next meeting we will use as a Work Session. (JP) What are we going to do? (GL) Probably the Zoning Ordinances. (JP) Is that we are going to do? (FH) We should start with the Rules of Procedure. (GL) We will address that at the first Work Session on May 7th and if we finish, go on to the Zoning Ordinances on the 21st. (FH) The Rules should be worked on until they are done. (JP) What other than elected rather than appointed members needs to be worked on? Why are we going to engage in a massive overhaul when no one has requested it? We should figure out what our plans are. (FH) Let’s go through the Rules of Procedure and have everyone on board. (BM) I do not know what exactly we can do in relation to comprehensive review. (JP) So we are not working on Zoning Ordinances until we finish with the Rules of Procedure. Majority of Board agreed.

Meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.

Approved: May 7, 2009

________________________________ ____________________
Gerard Leduc, Chairman Date

II Tapes

Attachment No.1 to Minutes of April 16, 2009:

Meeting with Mark Morrill, David Silvia, and Susan Soucie of the NH Department of Transportation on April 8, 2009 at approximately 10:30 AM

I went to the NHDOT to learn their evaluation of the site plan of Joseph Darrah and how the proposal might affect State highway Route 107, on which the Darrah property fronts.

Mr. Darrah has a driveway permit from the DOT. It was originally issued in November 2005 and was most recently amended on September 26, 2008. It does not cover the changes that Mr. Darrah’s site plan proposes. The original driveway permit is different than what he wants to do now because the terrain has changed.

Patrol foreman Tim Landry reports that there are icing problems with runoff in the area already. The construction that Mr. Darrah has already done has already caused a problem. Therefore, a catch basin is needed.

To address the drainage issues, Mr. Darrah should reapply for a new driveway permit and explain how he will resolve the drainage problem. The application must be made before the site plan is approved. The drainage issue will also require Mr. Darrah to apply for a wetlands permit from the NH Department of Environmental Services (DES). A driveway permit will include an excavation permit if excavation is necessary.

What Mr. Darrah has proposed in his site plan is not going to work. (Susan Soucie said of the Darrah plan, “This will not work.”)

Mr. Morrill drew two options that Mr. Darrah might consider. Option 1 is to install a pipe under Route 107 at the mouth of the driveway and drain the water from the catch basin to the other side of the highway. This approach would require a drainage easement from the property owner. Option 2 is to install a pipe along the side of Route 107 to channel the water to the nearby brook.

A “swale” is a shallow ditch, and it can go across a driveway. The driveway will have a swale even if there is a pipe underneath the driveway (option 2).

Jim Pritchard, Member, Pittsfield Planning Board