Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
August 16, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to Order by Eric Bahr, Chairman at 7:40 P.M.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Eric Bahr (EB), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-
Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr. (PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH),
and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent: Daniel Greene (DG), John Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex
Officio, Peter Newell (PN), Alternate, Chris Conlon (CC), Alternate.
(RH) Motion to Adjourn. (BM) Second. At 7:25 P.M. Motion and Second
Withdrawn at 7:40 P.M.
WORK SESSION
(EB) began Work Session with recognition of Mr. Pritchard’s disc that he
recently submitted to Planning Board regarding proposed changes to the
Zoning Ordinances. He did a lot of research. Several questions were raised
noting that Mr. Pritchard is not a resident of Pittsfield, though his mother
does own various properties within Pittsfield. (EB) noted that he had
briefly reviewed the disc contents and felt that some of the information
contained therein could be of value to the Board when proposing Zoning
Ordinance changes. He related that six months from now, there will be a
potentially different Planning Board seated and it would be nice to be able to
leave re-done Zoning Ordinances. Essentially, it does not matter who
contributes to the proposed changes, and as long as they refer to the RSA’s,
we can adopt it to whatever we want. (FH) noted that Board members had a
copy of the disc and we should go over each ordinance – evaluate it/change
it, if necessary/and go on. He noted that he is “computer illiterate, and
2
would prefer to have a paper copy.” What is noted regarding cluster
subdivisions in there? The first one we had worked, but the second one was
not too good. (RH) noted he would like to work on cluster subdivisions and
55+ housing. (BM) noted that Bow had stopped approving 55+ housing
because when you are mainly trying to attract a particular age, it becomes a
problem. We do not want to make it a Town full of strictly old people. I am
not in favor of age restrictive clusters. (RH) noted that cluster subdivisions
could be noted as part 55+ and part regular. Developers are attracted by
changing density to make it more affordable.
(EB) after reading suggested subdivision regulations as noted per Mr.
Pritchard’s version, stated that using our Ordinance, we can suggest
clustering frontage of 100 ft using not less than ten (10) acres. The
opportunity is always there to get a Variance. He suggests that in
developing a cluster subdivision, of the total acreage, about 15% is needed
for roads and utilities, and then dividing the rest of acreage by minimum
amount needed for zoning. There should be no more houses than zoning
allows. Planning Board gets to decide density according to land. Cluster
subdivisions are a win/win for the Town.
(EB) read further regarding the specifics of houses within the cluster.
(RH) noted that to determine the height of a structure, one would measure
halfway down from the peak of the roof. (EB) noted that this would allow
Planning Board to require change of “crappy designs.” (BM) noted that if it
is not mentioned within the Ordinance, that you cannot do it (exclusionary
rule). Once open space is established, it cannot be changed, but it must be
maintained. (RH) noted that he would like to see duplexes in clusters, as
they look nice and work well. (FH) Duplexes allow more density. We
could designate 55+ in cluster and also some regular housing as it would
increase density and make a nice mix. (EB) noted it was true that 55+ would
not put a burden on schools. (BM) With the population shift, we are being
inundated with 55+ citizens and we do not really need to attract them. The
baby boomers are here. (FH) noted that they will want amenities.
(BM) Why try to attract people you are going to get anyway? (EB) The
acreage requirement would be needed and maybe also light commercial
could be allowed, but we would have to change things and put it in the
Ordinances while preserving open space and maintaining traffic control.
(RH) The cluster ordinance should allow retail. (EB) noted that just as a
format, this is preferable to the one we have now.
3
Since Board members did not have a paper copy of these proposed changes
and (EB) and (BM) were reading from their computers, (EB) suggested that
he could make arrangements to have paper copies of this printed for the next
Work Session for all Board members. There are monies in our budget.
(RH) questioned whether there were definitions covered in Pritchard
proposal? (EB) read portions of the text to Board. Definitions are what it
means as defined. To clarify, individual definitions may differ from the
master definition.
(EB) noted that he could have the paper copies for the next Work Session
and that the Board could further discuss cluster subdivisions and definitions.
(BM) Motion to have Pritchard proposed Zoning Ordinances printed for
Planning Board members. (RH) Second. Carried 4-0.
ADJOURNMENT
(FH) Motion to adjourn. (PM) Second. Carried 4-0.
Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Approved: September 20, 2007
___________________________ ______________________
Eric Bahr, Chairman Date