April 18, 2013 Minutes


	<div id="primary" class="site-content">
		<div id="content" role="main">
<button onclick="history.go(-1);">Go Back to Pittsfield Town Minutes </button>
			<p id="print-link"><a href="#Print" onclick="window.print(); return false;" title="Click to print.">Click to print.</a></p>
			
				
	<article id="post-1529" class="post-1529 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-planning">
				<header class="entry-header">
									<h1 class="entry-title">April 18, 2013 Minutes</h1>
								</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<footer class="entry-meta">
					These minutes were posted by the <a href="http://mypittsfield.com/category/planning/" rel="category tag">Planning</a>.												</footer><!-- .entry-meta -->
		
								<div class="entry-content">
					<p> 	Pittsfield Planning Board<br />
	Town Hall, 85 Main Street<br />
	Pittsfield, NH 03263<br />
	Minutes of Public Meeting	</p>
<p>DATE:  Thursday, April 18, 2013</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 1:  Call to Order</p>
<p>Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 2:  Roll Call</p>
<p>Planning board members present:<br />
Clayton Wood (CW), planning board member and chair;<br />
Pat Heffernan (PH), planning board member and vice-chair;<br />
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary;<br />
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member; and<br />
Peter Dow (PD), alternate planning board member.</p>
<p>Planning board members absent:<br />
Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member, and<br />
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate planning board member.</p>
<p>Members of the public appearing before the planning board:  None.</p>
<p>“Members of the public appearing before the planning board” includes only members of the public who spoke to the board.  It does not include members of the public who were present but who did not speak to the board.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 3:  Agenda Review</p>
<p>CW said that the board’s next meeting, on May 2, 2013, will have a public hearing on the Bailey Park matter (a conservation restriction on the required conservation area—see subdivision regulations section 5, K, 4).  CW said that the hearing does not have an actual applicant, so the board should confine itself to mostly listening and not suggesting solutions.  If attendees have ideas for a conservation restriction in Bailey Park, then the board can refer the Bailey Park owners to building inspector Jesse Pacheco to help them to generate a specific proposal.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 4:  Approval of Minutes of the April 4, 2013 Meeting</p>
<p>BM moved to approve the minutes of April 4, 2013, as written in draft.</p>
<p>PH seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Discussion:</p>
<p>No board member saw any problems in the draft minutes.</p>
<p>Vote to approve the minutes of April 4, 2013, as written in draft:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  JP, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 5:  Letters to AHG Regarding Changes Required Prior to the Compliance Hearing for the Conditional Approval for the Stagecoach Condominium Cluster Subdivision (Map R44, Lot 1)</p>
<p>JP recused himself because his mother is an abutter to the Stagecoach Station project.</p>
<p>PD sat in JP’s place.</p>
<p>CW said that the votes that the board took on April 4, 2013, on the letters to AHG Properties were defective because PD sat for the votes after being reappointed but not having taken the oath of office (RSA 42:1).  CW said that PD had been sworn into office on Monday, April 15, 2013.  CW said that the board must vacate and revote the decisions of April 4, 2013, because one disqualified person sitting invalidates the whole board’s vote.  (Winslow v. Holderness 125 N.H. 262, 480 A.2d 114 (1984).)</p>
<p>CW said that PD’s sitting without having taken the oath of office was not the board’s only error.  The board did not vote on requiring AHG to add to the Stagecoach Station plat the locations and dimensions of the unit footprints, and the board voted on matters out of logical order.  To avoid such problems, CW had written notes for himself stating the proper motions, and CW will move the board on each of the matters that the board intended to decide on April 4, 2013.</p>
<p>CW said that the case law (DHB v. Pembroke, 152 N.H. 314, 876 A.2d 206 (2005)) is not clear on whether AHG could appeal the board’s decisions on the two proposed letters, but specifying in the letters dates for AHG to respond and for the planning board to make its recommendation under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), to the board of selectmen will eliminate the flaw in the letters that the planning board considered on April 4, 2013.  CW said that the board of selectmen understands that it must decide AHG’s request under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), within a reasonable time.</p>
<p>CW read the last paragraph of each of his letters, specifying the action dates:</p>
<p>“The [planning] board asks that you write to the board by May 20, 2013, saying that AHG will remove from the Stagecoach Station plat [the item that the board asked AHG to remove].  The board plans on making its recommendation to the Board of Selectmen in accordance with RSA 674:41 on June 6.”</p>
<p>CW moved the planning board to vacate its votes in agenda item 7 of the board’s meeting of April 4, 2013, because PD participated in the votes without having taken the oath of office according to RSA 42:1.</p>
<p>BM seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Discussion:  None.</p>
<p>Vote to vacate the planning board’s votes in agenda item 7 of the board’s meeting of April 4, 2013, because PD participated in the votes without having taken the oath of office according to RSA 42:1:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  PD, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)</p>
<p>CW moved the planning board to vote that AHG must remove from the Stagecoach Station plat the plan to relocate the stone wall bounding Thompson Road along the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field.</p>
<p>PH seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Discussion:  None.</p>
<p>Vote that AHG must remove from the Stagecoach Station plat the plan to relocate the stone wall bounding Thompson Road along the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  PD, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)</p>
<p>CW moved the planning board to send AHG the draft letter dated April 18, 2013, saying that AHG must remove from the Stagecoach Station plat the plan to relocate the stone wall bounding Thompson Road along the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field.</p>
<p>BM seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Discussion:</p>
<p>CW asked whether the board approved the dates specified in the letter’s last paragraph.</p>
<p>The board consensus was that the dates are appropriate.</p>
<p>Vote to send AHG the draft letter dated April 18, 2013, saying that AHG must remove from the Stagecoach Station plat the plan to relocate the stone wall bounding Thompson Road along the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  PD, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)</p>
<p>CW moved the planning board to vote that AHG must remove “as amended from time to time” from the Stagecoach Station conservation restriction.</p>
<p>BM seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Discussion:  None.</p>
<p>Vote that AHG must remove “as amended from time to time” from the Stagecoach Station conservation restriction:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  PD, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)</p>
<p>CW moved the planning board to vote that AHG must add to the Stagecoach Station plat the locations and dimensions of the unit footprints.</p>
<p>BM seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Discussion:</p>
<p>CW said that the unit-footprints matter is in the same letter with the “as amended from time to time” matter.</p>
<p>Vote that AHG must add to the Stagecoach Station plat the locations and dimensions of the unit footprints:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  PD, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)</p>
<p>CW moved the planning board to send AHG the draft letter dated April 18, 2013, saying (1) that AHG must remove “as amended from time to time” from the Stagecoach Station conservation restriction and (2) that AHG must add to the Stagecoach Station plat the locations and dimensions of the unit footprints.</p>
<p>BM seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Discussion:</p>
<p>CW asked whether the board approved the dates specified in the letter’s last paragraph.</p>
<p>The board consensus was that the dates are appropriate.</p>
<p>Vote to send AHG the draft letter dated April 18, 2013, saying (1) that AHG must remove “as amended from time to time” from the Stagecoach Station conservation restriction and (2) that AHG must add to the Stagecoach Station plat the locations and dimensions of the unit footprints:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  PD, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)</p>
<p>CW discussed the two letters’ new statement that the planning board will make its recommendation to the board of selectmen under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), on June 6, 2013.  The board of selectmen now has a specific date to expect the planning board’s recommendation.</p>
<p>The planning board consensus was that June 6, 2013, is an appropriate date.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 6:  Bonding Consideration for the Stagecoach Condominium Cluster Subdivision (Map R44, Lot 1)</p>
<p>BM had submitted a draft letter to the planning board suggesting a vote to require AHG to provide certain bonds in certain amounts and to provide a certain amount of money in escrow for third party inspections:<br />
$50,000 to bond the NH DOT driveway-permit area,<br />
$100,000 to bond Thompson Road above the driveway-permit area,<br />
$770,000 to bond inside Stagecoach Station, and<br />
$75,000 in escrow for third party inspection.</p>
<p>CW said that the board cannot vote on these matters now because the board must have a public hearing on the bond amounts.  Abutters have the right to comment on the bond amounts.  CW said that he will go to the NH Local Government Center (“LGC”) to discuss the hearing procedure for the bonding.  Many of the bonding regulations are in the subdivision regulations.  CW recommended that board members familiarize themselves with these bonding regulations.</p>
<p>BM suggested that, since the board must have a public hearing on the bond amounts, perhaps the board should have a public hearing on the board’s own bond and escrow amounts as BM has presented them in his draft letter.  After the hearing, the board should (1) derive a new bond proposal from the hearing, (2) present it to AHG, and (3) ask how AHG intends to comply with the board’s bond proposal.</p>
<p>CW said that BM’s proposed process seemed to make sense, but CW wants advice from LGC.</p>
<p>CW said that he did not want to send a letter on bonding with the two letters (on the stone wall and the conservation restriction) that the board just agreed to send.</p>
<p>BM agreed that the board should have a hearing before the board tells AHG what bond amounts the board will require.</p>
<p>CW said that he wanted to be sure that board members and EN in particular have copies of the construction estimates from Louis Berger Group (“LBG,” the town’s engineering experts).</p>
<p>BM discussed that the $770,000 bond does not cover all infrastructure in Stagecoach Station.  It does not cover the water system or the sewerage system.</p>
<p>BM asked whether the board would have to notify AHG of the board’s hearing on BM’s bond proposal.</p>
<p>CW said yes.</p>
<p>BM asked what advanced presentation of his bond proposal would the board have to give to the public.</p>
<p>CW said that the board would discuss this process on May 2, 2013.  The board will have to present BM’s proposal but will not have to present it in advance.  The board has already discussed BM’s proposal; the comments are on the record.  The board will have to be able to defend its numbers.  AHG has made her own bond proposal.  AHG has proposed three Developer Improvement Agreements.  (CW later corrected himself to two Developer Improvement Agreements.)</p>
<p>BM said that, in 2007, AHG had agreed to bond nothing except the NH DOT driveway-permit area.  The board can require more bonding because of subdivision regulations section 7, RSA 674:36, III, (b), and AHG’s failure to request a waiver of bonding requirements.</p>
<p>CW said that, on May 2, 2013, the board would discuss scheduling a public hearing on the board’s (BM’s) bond proposal.  CW will seek advice from LGC.</p>
<p>BM analyzed his estimate of $75,000 for third party inspection as follows:  $68,000 estimated by LBG for LBG’s services, and $7,000 estimated by BM for materials sampling and testing, which LBG does not do.  BM obtained his $7,000 estimate from Geotechnical Services, a firm with which BM is associated.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 7:  Selectman’s Report – Eric Nilsson, Selectman Ex Officio</p>
<p>There is no selectman’s report because EN is absent.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 8:  Members’ Concerns</p>
<p>No board member expressed any concerns.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 9:  Public Input</p>
<p>JP, speaking from the audience, referred to the board’s proposal to have a hearing on the board’s own bond proposal.  JP did not know what LGC would advise, but JP thought that the hearing that the board must have must be on AHG’s bond proposal, not the board’s own bond proposal.  AHG is the applicant; the board is not the applicant.  The board should wait until it has a proposal from AHG and then have a hearing on that proposal.  A hearing on the board’s own proposal would have the same problem as the hearing for Bailey Park:  the hearing would have no applicant.</p>
<p>BM suggested that the board could send its own proposal to AHG for her to make a counterproposal for the board to hear at the same hearing with the board’s own proposal.</p>
<p>JP said that the board should not do as BM suggested because the board is supposed to be impartial.  The board is very far from the process of the statute (RSA 676:4, I, (i)).  Ordinarily, an applicant would present what he says is his final plat, he would request a compliance hearing, and the board would vote the plat up or down.  The board has gone to great lengths to help correct this applicant’s problems and to help her get Stagecoach Station approved, but there is a limit to what the board should do to help, and actually doing AHG’s application for her is not appropriate.</p>
<p>CW said that the board needs guidance from LGC.  The board has never gone through this bonding process before.  The subdivision regulations have good guidelines but do not detail process.</p>
<p>PH asked JP about asking LGC whether the board has “the cart in front of the horse” in the board’s having a hearing on the board’s own proposal.</p>
<p>JP did not want to speculate on what LGC might say, because JP does not always agree with LGC.  JP thought that the statute (RSA 676:4, I, (i)) clearly requires the board to have a hearing on AHG’s proposal, not the board’s own proposal.</p>
<p>PH was concerned that the board may not have proper procedure in having a hearing on the board’s own proposal.</p>
<p>JP said that PH’s concern is valid.  AHG has always maintained that she does not have to bond anything.  If the board develops and presents its own bond proposal, then AHG may claim that the board is prejudiced.</p>
<p>PH said that another way to look at JP’s argument is that the board will more likely get an honest number from AHG if AHG has to develop her number independently.</p>
<p>JP agreed.</p>
<p>BM read subdivision regulations section 7, A, 2, a, and said that this regulation supports JP.  The board must ask AHG to propose a bond, and then the board must decide whether to approve it or to disapprove it.</p>
<p>JP agreed and said that there are two issues:  (1) whether AHG has to bond for completion in concept and (2) what amount is necessary to bond for completion.  AHG has not even agreed in concept to bond for completion, so AHG has proposed no completion-bond amount for the board to evaluate.</p>
<p>BM said that he wanted to emphasize to AHG that she must bond the project.</p>
<p>JP said that he was unaware of any bond proposal from AHG.</p>
<p>CW said that AHG had submitted three Developer Improvement Agreements.  (CW later corrected himself to two Developer Improvement Agreements.)</p>
<p>BM repeated that he wants AHG to know that she must bond the project.  BM does not want to “waste” a public hearing on an unbonded proposal.</p>
<p>JP said that such a hearing would not be “wasted” because it would process AHG’s proposal properly.  If the board wants, it could write AHG a third letter saying that she must agree in concept to bond for completion.</p>
<p>CW clarified that the board has two Developer Improvement Agreements.  AHG has proposed a performance bond of $90,245 on Thompson Road above the NH DOT driveway-permit area and a restoration bond of $128,282 to restore 5 acres inside Stagecoach Station.  The board must have the compliance hearing on these two proposals.  CW will distribute these two proposals to the board for its May 2, 2013, meeting.</p>
<p>AGENDA ITEM 10:  Adjournment</p>
<p>PD left the board, and JP returned to the board.</p>
<p>BM moved to adjourn the meeting.</p>
<p>PH seconded the motion.</p>
<p>Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of April 18, 2013:  carried 4 &#8211; 0 &#8211; 0.  (Voting “yes”:  JP, PH, BM, and CW.  Voting “no”:  none.  Abstaining:  none.)  The planning board meeting of April 18, 2013, is adjourned at 7:48 P.M.</p>
<p>Minutes approved:  May 2, 2013</p>
<p>______________________________ _____________________<br />
Clayton Wood, Chairman		Date</p>
<p>I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on April 20, 2013, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on April 18, 2013, and from a copy of the one Town tape that Chairman Clayton Wood made on April 19, 2013.</p>
<p>____________________________________________<br />
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary</p>
<p>one Town tape.</p>
					</div><!-- .entry-content -->
		
	
	</article><!-- #post -->

				

			
		</div><!-- #content -->
	</div><!-- #primary -->