DATE: Thursday, December 20, 2012

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Members present: Jim Pritchard (JP), secretary; Pat Heffernan (PH), vice-chair; Gerard LeDuc (GL), selectmen’s ex officio member; Bill Miskoe (BM), member; and Clayton Wood (CW), chair.

Members absent: Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate, and Peter Dow (PD), alternate.

Other town officials present: None.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Tom MacMullin, president and general manager of Kentek, 1 Elm Street, Pittsfield, and Dan Schroth, 295 Clough Road, Pittsfield.

“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.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Agenda Review

CW said that Kentek’s request for waiver from site plan review had been a late addition.

CW said that the board had received two citizen zoning petitions and should tentatively decide the date of the public hearings and the language of the notices of the public hearings.

AGENDA ITEM 5: A Public Hearing for application for a Boundary Line Adjustment filed on behalf of Peter and Katherine Treem, P.O. Box 215, Deerfield, NH 03037 and Steven and Melissa Gendron, 13 Vindale Road, Hooksett, NH 03106 (Tax Map R10, Lot 1 and Tax Map R10, Lot 2). These properties are owned by said individuals and both properties are located in the RURAL Zone. A copy of the proposed lot line adjustment is on file at the Town Hall.

CW explained that the Treem-Gendron application is not ready for the board’s review. Because the board had scheduled and given notice of the hearing on the application before the applicants discovered an error, the board must open the hearing and then continue the hearing to a later date.

CW opened the hearing at 7:04 and read the notice of public hearing. CW said that the joint applicants had requested a continuance to February 7, 2013.

BM moved to continue the public hearing on the lot-line adjustment to February 7, 2013, at the request of the applicants.

GL seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked whether the board were continuing the hearing per se, or whether the board were continuing the completeness review. (RSA 676:4, I, (c), (1).)

CW said that the board is actually continuing the completeness review.

PH asked whether the completeness review required a separate notice from the public hearing.

JP checked RSA 676:4, I, (d), (1), and found that this statute requires two separate notices although the two notices can be given at the same time on the same page.

CW said that, most precisely, the board had to continue two things: (1) the completeness review and (2) the hearing on the merits. CW said that the board was facing the 65-day deadline to act after receiving an application. Only the applicants have authority to extend the 65-day deadline; the board cannot extend the 65-day deadline.

JP said that the 65-day deadline is from the date when the board accepts the application as complete. (RSA 676:4, I, (c), (1).)

GL agreed.

BM disputed that a lot-line adjustment is a subdivision. BM said that the board had never treated a lot-line adjustment as a subdivision.

JP cited the statutory definition of a subdivision, RSA 672:14. A lot-line adjustment meets this definition because a lot-line adjustment is a division of a tract of land into two new lots.

CW said that CNHRPC had defined the process and had written the notice that the board was using. CW will check with CNHRPC to determine whether the process and the notice are correct. CNHRPC had said that the 65-day deadline applied.

JP said that the board had not given notice of the completeness review. JP said that the 65-day deadline does not apply to the completeness review. JP said that the board was supposed to do the completeness review at the first regular meeting that is 15 days or more after the application was filed. (RSA 676:4, I, (c), (1).) Because tonight’s meeting is not a regular meeting, the board should not have scheduled the application for tonight in any case, but the board did schedule it for tonight. JP read RSA 676:4, I, (c), (1), to confirm that the 65 days was after the completeness review:

“Upon determination by the board that a submitted application is complete according to the board’s regulations, the board shall begin formal consideration and shall act to approve, conditionally approve as provided in subparagraph (i), or disapprove within 65 days, subject to extension or waiver as provided in subparagraph (f).”

CW said that the board has not been doing completeness reviews within 15 days of the filing date.

JP said that Matt Monahan’s timeline set forth in the rules of procedure and the subdivision regulations cannot possibly meet statutory requirements.

JP suggested an amended motion to continue both the completeness review and the public hearing on the merits to the board’s regular meeting on February 7, 2013.

BM declined to withdraw his motion. BM’s motion is just to continue the public hearing on the lot-line adjustment to February 7, 2013, at the request of the applicants.

Vote to continue the public hearing on the lot-line adjustment to February 7, 2013, at the request of the applicants: failed 1 – 4 – 0. (Voting “yes”: BM. Voting “no”: JP, PH, GL, and CW. Abstaining: none.)

JP moved to continue both the completeness review and the public hearing on the merits to the board’s regular meeting on February 7, 2013.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to continue both the completeness review and the public hearing on the merits to the board’s regular meeting on February 7, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW said that, at the January 3, 2013, meeting, the board would review the procedure for acting on applications for subdivision.

JP said that the draft rules of procedure on which the board had been working set forth the notice and timing requirements. (Draft rules of procedure, June 5, 2012, section IX, Schedule and Notice for Meetings for Subdivision or Site Plan Applications.)

CW asked all board members to review the procedure for acting on applications for subdivision, and to be prepared to discuss the procedure at the January 3, 2013, meeting.

CW recognized public input.

Dan Schroth asked why the board was delaying the lot-line adjustment application.

CW said that the applicants had discovered mistakes in their application.

Dan Schroth said that he had not had to have a public hearing when he merged two 5-acre lots.

BM said that a lot merger is different from a lot-line adjustment.

CW closed the Treem-Gendron matter at 7:28 PM.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of December 6, 2012

BM moved to approve the minutes as written in draft.

GL seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked that the two pieces of correspondence from town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan be dated. This change affects (1) agenda item 6, page 3; (2) agenda item 6, page 14; and (3) agenda item 9, page 19.

JP and BM discussed the meaning of “it is concomitant on AHG” in agenda item 6, page 6, and agreed that “there is a demand on AHG” would more clearly state BM’s intended meaning.

Vote to approve the minutes of December 6, 2012, with the changes that JP and BM requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Following the meeting, JP (the recording secretary) noticed that agenda items 8, 9, and 10 were mislabeled in the draft minutes as agenda items 10, 11, and 12. JP corrected this error with the chair’s permission.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Waiver – Site Plan Review: Kentek Laser is an existing local business which would like to relocate its operations from their current location at One Elm Street to this new location at 32 Broadway.

Tom MacMullin, president and general manager of Kentek, 1 Elm Street, Pittsfield, presented his request for waiver from site plan review. Kentek is a high-technology laser company that has been in business since 1983. Kentek has been in Pittsfield for most of that time. Kentek has 26 employees, of whom 22 are in Pittsfield. Kentek has grown and needs a new building. The property at 32 Broadway is very near Kentek’s current location at 1 Elm Street.

Tom MacMullin said that code enforcement officer Jesse Pacheco had found that the proposed use would conform to the zoning ordinance. But because the use at 32 Broadway would be a new use at this site, the use invokes the site plan review regulations. Tom MacMullin is asking for an exemption from site plan review according to site plan review regulations section II, B.

Tom MacMullin said that Kentek was planning no exterior renovations to the building except a walkway and security lighting. Kentek will cause no adverse impact beyond the site boundaries. Kentek will not pollute the groundwater or drainage. Kentek does not use heavy machinery or nasty chemicals. Kentek will not disrupt the neighbors or overburden municipal services.

GL asked for confirmation that Kentek is consolidating into one building a business now spread over three buildings.

Tom MacMullin said yes.

GL said that the 32 Broadway site had had manufacturing previously.

Tom MacMullin agreed.

BM said that the building had always been industrial.

CW asked for confirmation that the property has two lots with one address.

Tom MacMullin said yes. One of the lots has the building, and one of the lots provides the parking.

CW asked for a comparison of the current square footage against the proposed square footage.

Tom MacMullin said that he currently has approximately 7000 square feet at 1 Elm Street, but the space is chopped up with hallways. Usable square footage is about 5000 square feet. Kentek leases another 1500 square feet in Barnstead and another 1000 in a warehouse in Rhode Island. The 32 Broadway building has about 15,000 square feet.

CW asked about the frequency of deliveries.

Tom MacMullin said that Kentek will receive parcels from couriers such as UPS every day. Kentek will receive about 6 to 10 deliveries from trucks each week. The 32 Broadway building has two loading docks to accommodate the deliveries.

CW asked about parking accommodations.

Tom MacMullin said that the 32 Broadway site has about 35 parking spaces.

JP said that the zoning ordinance requires 36 parking spaces, which could be within “about 35 parking spaces.” JP asked for the board’s opinion on whether the code enforcement officer Jesse Pacheco’s determination included conformance to the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance.

The board agreed that Jesse Pacheco’s determination included conformance to the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Tom MacMullin explained his business as being like “woodworking with metal.” Tom MacMullin distributed a brochure explaining Kentek’s products.

CW said that the manufacturing appeared to have no impact on water use or drainage. CW asked about fire inspections.

Tom MacMullin said that the fire chief and the building inspector had looked at the site and the proposed changes. Kentek will refit the sprinkler system. Kentek will improve the exits with proper landings and wide passageways. Kentek will improve the firewalls between the office space and the industrial space.

CW confirmed that these changes were for building-code conformance and were not major renovation.

Tom MacMullin said that Kentek will not do renovation to the exterior, but Kentek will clear the interior to the walls and then reconstruct the whole interior to code on one level.

BM noted that the request for exemption from site plan review said that “solid waste” would go into the town sewerage system.

Tom MacMullin said that this description was misleading. Kentek will not dump anything other than sanitary waste into the town sewerage system.

BM moved to approve the exemption from site plan review.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to approve Kentek’s request for exemption from site plan review (32 Broadway): carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW explained the 30-day appeal process of RSA 677:15.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Petition – Repeal of Zoning Ordinances; Petition – Frontage

The board has received two citizen zoning petitions: one to repeal the zoning ordinance, and one to define the frontage requirement for subdivision as class V or better highway frontage. The repeal petition says as follows:

“To be decided at the 2013 Pittsfield Town Meeting

“Are you in favor of the repeal of the Pittsfield Zoning Ordinance as proposed by petition of the voters of this town?”

The frontage petition says as follows:

“To the selectmen of Pittsfield, New Hampshire:

“Pursuant to RSA 675:4, I, the undersigned registered voters ask that you insert the following article in the warrant for the March 12, 2013, town meeting:

“Are you in favor of an amendment to the town zoning ordinance that defines the road frontage required for subdivision, but not for building on an existing lot, as frontage on any paved or dirt road that the town or state maintains. The purposes of the amendment are (1) to ensure that fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars can reach new development and (2) to make the developer instead of taxpayers pay for the road improvements that the new development will make necessary.

“See the amendment itself for its full text.”

The board tentatively agreed that it would schedule public hearings on the two citizen zoning petitions for January 24, 2013, at 7:00 PM. CW will make sure that the meeting room is available for that night.

The board asked JP to write draft notices for the two public hearings. The board agreed that, in view of the selectmen’s decision last year to put the purpose statement of BM’s petition on the ballot, the planning board should likewise put the purpose statement of the frontage petition on the notice of public hearing.

At the board’s regular meeting in January (January 3, 2013) the board will formally vote on the date of the hearings and the language of the notices of public hearings. In the meantime, the chair will tell the Suncook Valley Sun to expect the board to buy an advertisement on Friday, January 4, 2013, to appear in the January 9, 2013, edition. (See RSA 675:4 and RSA 675:7.)

AGENDA ITEM 8: Selectman’s Report – Gerard LeDuc, Selectman Ex Officio

GL said that LK, who is also the chair of the board of selectmen, had decided to hold the AHG-abutters’ meeting of January 15, 2013, at the high school auditorium because LK thinks that the meeting may draw a large crowd. The board of selectmen is encouraging both the planning board and the zoning board of adjustment (“ZBA”) to attend.

CW asked GL whether the meeting would be a joint meeting of boards, or would the meeting be a selectmen’s meeting that the two land use boards would attend.

GL said that the meeting would be a selectmen’s meeting that the two land use boards would attend.

CW said that he planned to attend and that he was asking all of the other planning board members to attend.

JP asked for clarification that the selectmen have encouraged the planning board to attend this meeting.

GL said yes.

JP asked for clarification that the selectmen have encouraged the ZBA to attend this meeting.

GL said that the selectmen had not encouraged the ZBA to attend, but GL said that he will recommend that the selectmen do encourage the ZBA to attend.

JP asked GL why did the selectmen think that the meeting would draw more people than the usual meeting room at the town hall could accommodate.

GL could only say that LK thought that the meeting would draw more people than the usual meeting room at the town hall could accommodate.

CW said that the abutters must submit their questions at least 10 days before the meeting. CW asked whether the planning board will get copies of the questions.

GL said that he did not know but that he would ask.

CW said that he needed to know the format of the meeting. CW wondered whether he would be sitting at the members’ table or in the audience. The planning board needs to know this.

PH asked what time the meeting would start.

GL said that the meeting would start at 6:00 PM.

BM asked whether the meeting were a regular meeting of the board of selectmen.

GL said yes, but the meeting is the result of rescheduling what would have been an earlier meeting. The rescheduling happened because of the New Year holiday.

CW said that, if LK plans to have any planning board members sitting at the members’ table, then LK should let the planning board know. If the planning board members will sit at the members’ table, then the planning board members should have copies of the questions.

JP said that, if the planning board is discussing sitting at the members’ table, then the planning board appears to be discussing a meeting. JP said that the board appears to be having a meeting even if planning board members do not sit at the members’ table. JP referred to the minutes of the December 6, 2012, meeting of the planning board, which show that CW encouraged board members to attend the January 15, 2013, abutters’ meeting. A quorum of the planning board convening to do planning board business is a meeting. This situation is like a quorum of the planning board going on a site visit. The board will not gather by accident; they will convene because CW encouraged board members to attend the abutters’ meeting. JP thinks that the planning board will be having a meeting whether board members sit at the members’ table or not. JP will not attend the meeting if the board does not give notice of the meeting.

CW agreed to give notice of the meeting.

JP said that the meeting had evolved greatly since LK first proposed it. Originally, abutters had gone to a selectmen’s meeting (November 27, 2012) and asked questions. LK had said that asking the selectmen questions without giving the selectmen time to prepare was unfair. LK agreed to answer the questions if the abutters would present them in writing. Then the selectmen decided that they would not answer the questions at all; instead, they would have Matt Monahan and town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan answer the questions for the selectmen. Now the planning board has been invited, and the ZBA will be invited, and government officials will greatly outnumber the abutters. JP said that, if the meeting is noticed, then he will have to attend because he is a board member. If the meeting is not noticed, then JP will not attend because he does not want to violate Right-to-Know. (RSA 91-A:2, II.)

CW said that the planning board needs to know its role at the abutters’ meeting. CW asked GL to explain what is the planning board’s role at this meeting. CW does not envision the planning board discussing anything at this meeting.

PH suggested giving notice just to be safe.

BM said that planning board members would have to be absolutely silent if the board did not give notice of the meeting. Therefore, BM suggested giving notice so that planning board members could respond to matters that might arise.

JP said that BM’s logic applied whether planning board members speak or not. Planning board members will attend the meeting on planning board business. JP repeated that attendance at the abutters’ meeting will be like a site visit. If a quorum goes to view a site, then they are having a meeting even if they discuss nothing.

CW and BM agreed.

CW said that the board would make the final decision on January 3, 2013, on whether to notice the meeting. CW agreed that attending the abutters’ meeting would be part of the planning board’s decision-making process.

GL recounted what he had written to ask questions for the board of selectmen. First, the planning board needs to know the format of the abutters’ meeting. Second, the planning board needs to know its role at the meeting. Third, the board of selectmen should make copies of the abutters’ questions for the whole public to view.

JP said that the selectmen had required questions to be submitted in writing and in advance in order to be considered. Consequently, JP had asked the selectmen to provide written answers. JP asked GL whether the selectmen would provide written answers.

GL said that he did not know.

BM said that the selectmen would have to meet and decide what their answers would be.

JP disagreed. According to GL, the town attorney and Matt Monahan will answer all questions, and the selectmen will say nothing. JP said that he did not like this arrangement because JP had thought that he would be speaking to his elected officials, not to a town attorney who has already given her opinion on all of the AHG matters, and JP already knows what she thinks.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Members’ Concerns

PH referred to AHG Properties’ proposed movement of the stone wall bounding Thompson Road from Kathy Bleckmann’s land. Can the board have Andrew Sullivan, attorney for AHG, cite the law that he says allows AHG to move the stone wall?

CW agreed to write Andrew Sullivan a letter. CW asked board members to tell CW of any open issues that the board members have on AHG. CW will research these matters in time for the January 3, 2013, planning board meeting.

PH referred to the back-door amendments that AHG wanted for the possible gazebo. PH thought that such a back door is a “slippery slope.” PH said that building the gazebo is like building a hotel in a National forest. No building at all is permissible.

CW and PH agreed that the board would collect all questions on January 3, 2013, and compose one letter after the January 3, 2013, meeting.

JP said that BM had asked Jennifer McCourt how surveyor Jacques Belanger had determined the legal center line of Thompson Road, and Jennifer McCourt then guessed at what Jacques Belanger might have done. But Jennifer McCourt cited the so-called dedication and referred to Thompson Road as a “described right-of-way.” AHG had submitted with their special exception application a layout record from the NH DOT, which AHG said was the layout record of Thompson Road. The layout record describes a highway lying on the lot line between lots 103 and 104 of the subdivision among the original proprietors of Pittsfield in the 1700s. JP thought that it would be interesting to ask Jacques Belanger whether he used that layout record to determine the legal center line of Thompson Road, and, if Jacques Belanger did use that layout record, how did he find the boundary between lots 103 and 104. JP said that JP has a map of the subdivision of Pittsfield among the original proprietors, and that the map has an overlay of highways, and that Thompson Road is not particularly close to the lot 103-104 lot line.

CW asked JP to bring a copy of the map to the January 3, 2013, meeting.

BM said that he had talked to Tony Puntin at the Louis Berger Group about bonding. Tony Puntin said that Louis Berger Group’s procedure is to take the developer’s estimate and determine whether the estimate is reasonable. Tony Puntin passed BM’s request to another engineer at Louis Berger Group, Darrel Ford, and Darrel Ford will evaluate AHG’s bond proposal. BM met with Darrel Ford on December 18, 2012, at the town hall. BM requested cost estimates for the following:

(1) the town-owned part of Thompson Road,

(2) the 800-feet of Stagecoach Road within Stagecoach Station,

(3) underground utilities,

(4) the two wells,

(5) the water delivery system, and

(6) the sewage effluent collection and pumping and leach field.

BM thinks that the board should require bonds on all of these utilities.

JP asked whether BM had asked about bonding for the sophisticated infiltration systems that Jennifer McCourt said that AHG would use to protect the Sargent land. If these infiltration systems do not get built, then the Sargent land will be harmed.

BM said that he would investigate bonding the infiltration systems.

BM said that he was thinking about what might happen to this development. AHG might sell one or two lots, which would activate the condominium association and its associated fees. If the owner of the undeveloped lots defaults on taxes, then the town will have to take title to the land after three years. Two homeowners might own developed lots, and the town might own ten undeveloped lots. In that case, the Town of Pittsfield would be responsible for condominium fees.

JP disagreed. JP did not remember the exact language of the condominium declaration, but the declarant AHG will not have to pay condominium fees on undeveloped lots. (Condominium declaration paragraph 25.2.) Furthermore, AHG’s undeveloped lots will have current use assessment, so their taxes will be very low, making tax default unlikely. Even if the town were to take over the condominium association in AHG’s place, the town would not have to pay condominium fees because AHG will not have to pay fees. In BM’s scenario, only the two people living in Stagecoach Station will be paying condominium fees.

BM asked how could two people pay the condominium fees? AHG estimates that the condominium association will need $26,000 per year. Operating all of the sophisticated infrastructure of this development will be too expensive and too much for two homeowners to handle.

JP said that he had raised this concern before. The board had not thought it important.

BM said that now he thinks that this concern is important, and furthermore, the board did not have the condominium documents in 2007.

JP commended BM for his insight and diligence, but JP said that bonding would not solve this problem given that the condominium declaration is written as it is. JP said that he was not saying whether the condominium declaration as it is written is a good thing or not.

BM said that he did not necessarily accept the condominium declaration as it is written, and that he is concerned by AHG’s having exempted herself from condominium fees on undeveloped lots.

CW said that the board would gather all of these concerns at the January 3, 2013, meeting and then construct a consensus letter.

BM said that the new books of statutes are available.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Public Input

Dan Schroth said that he would like to have some signatures on his petition to the town meeting to silence the curfew horn at 9:00 PM in the center of town.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of December 20, 2012: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of December 20, 2012, is adjourned at 8:47 P.M.

Minutes approved: January 3, 2013

______________________________ _____________________

Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on December 22, 2012, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on December 20, 2012, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Clayton Wood made on December 21, 2012.

____________________________________________

Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary

December 20, 2012 Minutes

2 Town tapes.