December 4, 2008 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2008

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Rich Hunsberger, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present: Rich Hunsberger, (RH), Chairman, Gerard Leduc (GL), Vice-Chair, Fred Hast (FH), Marilyn Roberts (MR), Daniel Greene (DG), Larry Konopka (LK), Selectman Ex-Officio, Dan Schroth (DS), Alternate, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Robert Elliott (RE), and Tom Hitchcock (TH), Alternate.

ITEM 3. A Public Hearing for application for a proposed two-lot residential subdivision at 313 Webster Mills Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R51, Lot 4). The property is owned by Richard and Heather Colman, Sr., 15 School Street, Boscawen, NH 03303. This property is located in the RURAL Zone. Representing the applicant will be J.E. Belanger Land Surveying PLLC, 61 Old Hopkinton Road, Dunbarton, NH 03046.

(LK) Motion to accept application as complete. All Department Heads have signed off on this. (DG) Second. Carried 6-0.

Mr. Belanger explained the proposed two-lot residential subdivision indicating that there are currently 7.46 acres and the division would entail one lot with 2.84 acres and the other with 4.62 acres. He noted the State has already given them subdivision approval.

(GL) noted that he and (LK) had reviewed the property area at the site. He questioned positioning of the driveway. Mr. Belanger noted that there is more than sufficient frontage for both pieces of property and would not be an issue.

(DG) Motion to approve two-lot residential subdivision Tax Map R51,
Lot 4. (GL) Second. Carried 6-0.

Mr. Belanger noted he would be filing the Mylar in the near future.

ITEM 4. A hearing regarding a proposed Lot Line Adjustment suggested by Mark A. Riel, 960 Catamount Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 involving Tax Map R15, Lot 22, One High Street, owned by Mark and Andrea Riel. Tax Map R15, Lots 31 and 32 would also be affected. Tax Map R15, Lot 31 is owned by Matthew and Vickie St. George, 101 True Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263. Tax Map R15, Lot 32 is owned by George and Mary Gray, 25 High Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263. The lot line adjustments would transfer property back to the owners of Tax Map R15, Lots 31 and 32, which will result in three more uniform lots when completed.

(RH) noted that looking at the plan it is difficult to note whether there are two or three property lots involved. Mr. Riel noted that there were two lot line adjustments, which would create three separate lots by transferring land from my lot into the other ones. (RH) noted, “We are talking about 8.35 acres. How much would that leave in your lot? Mr. Riel indicated about four acres. (LK) questioned whether he has all this in writing? Mr. Riel indicated he did. (RH) You would have to have it surveyed and have lot lines established. This is a non-binding conceptual hearing with the Planning Board but there appears to be no problem. Mr. Riel indicated that he would probably be filing an application soon.

Dan Schroth was seated on the Board (7:10 P.M.)

ITEM 6. Approval of Minutes of October 16, 2008, November 13, 2008, and November 20, 2008.

(LK) Motion to approve Minutes of October 16, 2008. (GL) Second. Carried 7-0.

(LK) Motion to approve Minutes of November 13, 2008. (DS) Second. Carried 5-0. (RH) and (DG) abstain.

(LK) Motion to approve Minutes of November 20, 2008. (MR) Second. After Discussion and correction: Carried 5-0. (RH) and (DG) abstain.

ITEM 7. Selectman’s Report

(LK) Kyle Parker (KP) has been hired as Building Inspector, part-time. (DS) wanted to reiterate to Kyle “If anyone talks to you about starting a business, we would like you to “baby-sit” these people through the entire procedure to help that person further the process.” (LK) Kyle will be attending the Planning Board meetings when necessary. (GL) suggested that he review the proposed Zoning Ordinances changes and offer his input. (DG) “Where are you from, Kyle?” (KP) “Henniker.”

(FH) noted that there is a new business in Town at the tannery and they are open and have not gone through the process with the Planning Board. Usually they come in before they start. They went before the Board of Selectman. (LK) noted that they would be coming in for a Site Plan Review application on Monday and discussing with Building Inspector at that time.

ITEM 8. Building Inspector Report

None.

ITEM 5. New Business

1. Meeting with Master Plan Committee – Ralph Odell

Ralph Odell noted that the Master Plan is now in its final stages. He noted the purpose of this meeting is to address an issue regarding zoning which the Board has been discussing. He noted that as one drives through Pittsfield one notes the scenery and the rural setting.

What the Master Plan Committee is suggesting is potentially creating a new zone such as an Agricultural Zone essentially on Upper City Road abutting Route 28 and several conservation areas.

Susan Muenzinger has prepared a map indicating the area in question. This area is a scenic area with beautiful views, some wetlands, and some of the best soil in the area. Mr. Odell indicated that Loudon and Gilmanton already have an Agricultural Zone. Ms. Muenzinger, “We would like to see it allocated to certain activities. It would include a minimum of five acre lots, 325 ft. frontage, single family residences with an agriculture use as well as some Park and Rec uses which would only include low impact activities.” She noted that there are currently 46 lots under five acres and 31 lots with ten acres or more and seven lots with fifty acres or more. The average frontage is 325 ft. This is land that is least impacted, open farmland, large lots and would foster preservation and could possibly generate larger housing.

(RH) noted that Board had discussed making that area five-acre lots, but the Planning Board is not in favor of this. (DS) Have you gotten support from the homeowners? (GL) The Master Plan is only a draft. Ms. Muenzinger indicated that if Board were in agreement, Master Plan Committee would incorporate it into the Master Plan. (LK) Would you consider two family homes? Ms. Muenzinger, “No.” Board and Ms. Muenzinger discussed subdivision in relation to these lots and availability of road. (LK) It would be more affordable with two family homes. Ms. Muenzinger, “No.”

Helen Schoppmeyer noted “We are talking about preserving open area for the future. This would increase the tax dollars if people would build more expensive homes. We do not need more Town facilities. This is just a positive addition for a tax break.”

(FH) noted that in most of that area the roads are not good which would hinder building. There already is farmland and conservation up there. “What would the property owners say about this?” Ms. Schoppmeyer noted that the Planning Board would have to make the zoning changes and “if the people were not willing they would say so.” (FH) We will be lucky to get the amended Zoning Ordinances in this year. Ms. Schoppmeyer noted that this was just an informational meeting with the Planning Board.

2. WORK SESSION

(RH) noted that there seemed to be some confusion regarding the asterisk. The asterisk merely denotes criteria. (LK) I guess we missed a few at the Public Hearing. I am in favor of cutting this down to a shorter version. (DS) There is a group of people who would vote against it whatever it contains. (LK) We should make it so we all understand. We would be better off to cut it to just ten items. (DS) related that he did not mind doing less, but we should do the important ones. (LK) What I would like to do is take the ten most important items and support those. (DS) We could isolate the ten most important ones. (RH) noted, “We can do this, but it will not change the minds of those who do not want change.”

Board members decided to note from the Table of Uses, those items they felt were most important. The list included Agriculture – Commercial, Automobile Dealers, Bakery, Bed and Breakfast, Campground, Church, Cluster Development, Combined Dwelling, Home Occupation, In-Law Apartments, Multi-family House, Personal Services, Restaurant, School, Truck-Heavy Equipment and Trailer Repair, and Two Family Dwelling.

(DS) noted, “We need to think about job opportunities.” (MR) I had signs thrown in there.” (RH) noted it was important to exempt certain things from height requirements.

(LK) The Zoning Board came to us back in April. I would like to see them write some language and submit it. (RH) noted that Board really did not want to get into signage. (DS) I would not want to see this whittled down and have wasted my summer. I am worried about a watered down document. (RH) noted that one of the Zoning Board’s recommendations was a definition for frontage. Exemptions from setbacks and heights need to be in there. (LK) Frontage absolutely needs to be one of our ten. (RH) We want to get something accomplished and we need to get the exemptions in there.

Board discussed some changes they felt they were willing to make in the Zoning Ordinances. (RH) noted, “We should put it forth the way we had it. If it passes, it passes. If not, then we can go from there. I do not believe in bending towards a certain group. In all our work sessions, no one ever came to meetings to voice their opinions.” (FH) Maybe we could dress it up a little better. (MR) I think, honestly, we should take a look at tightening this up. The point was made at the last Public Hearing that “this was a large document and people did not want to read through it.” So, we went to two Public Hearings and did not have some definitions and could not explain others. We have holes in this that a truck could drive through. We should work on a few and tighten it up. She noted that she had the Signage Ordinance out of Barnstead as an example. (RH) That is really a lousy sign ordinance. Board decided to conduct a poll to see how many would like to do a sign ordinance. Majority wins. Board briefly discussed the different aspects of size and sign materials according to businesses. (RH) This is not the time to write a sign ordinance. (LK) We could get the ZBA to help us on this.

Sue Muenzinger noted that the language now in the Zoning Ordinances is unclear. It requires clarification in regard to procedures, locations, and etc. (FH) We could work on that for next time. (MR) I am wiling to try and work on it. We should back up and take a second look at things. We would have a better chance of getting it passed. (LK) It is not good if you cannot understand the questions or answer them. (FH) We asked for input at the Public Hearing. We did not say we would answer all the questions.
(RH) That is the reason why you want uses. (MR) There were not a lot of questions on cluster developments so it apparently does not need a lot of “tweaking.” (GL) What about the asterisks, some had them, but there was no criteria. (RH) We were going to write criteria for some of the uses and then didn’t. “I think we should stick to our guns on certain things.”

ITEM 9. Members Concerns

(LK) My issue is that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have to be here. It is important. It is hard putting it on the Vice-Chair. Whoever takes the position has to be here and be active. (DS) Rich had a lot to do in getting us to this point. (RH) noted “The Board will be electing a new Chairman in April. I feel bad, but I cannot be here for a lot of the future meetings due to personal issues. I do not want to throw this out. I hope the Board will be unified and explain it to people. A lot of the comments at the Public Hearings as noted in the Minutes is just foolishness.” (DS) I think we should leave Rich in as Chairman. (RH) “The new Chair will be elected in April.” (GL) I think we should keep Rich in for now and I can run meetings as Vice-Chairman. We can finish the year as it and have one or both alternates here. (FH) “We are supposed to have seven active members.”

Board agreed they would review the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes and meet again on December 18th to finalize the document.

ITEM 10. Public Input

None.

ITEM 11. Adjournment

(GL) Motion to adjourn. (MR) Second. Carried 7-0.

Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.

Approved: December 18, 2008

_______________________________ ____________________
Gerard Leduc, Vice-Chairman Date

II Tapes