December 4, 2015 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Planning.

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

DATE: Thursday, December 4, 2014

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Planning board members present:
Clayton Wood (CW), planning board member and chair;
Pat Heffernan (PH), planning board member and vice-chair;
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary;
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member;
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member; and
Roland Carter (RC), alternate planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Gerard LeDuc (GL), alternate for the selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

Other town officials present: Carole Dodge, chair of the zoning board of adjustment; Mike Williams, town administrator; and Jesse Pacheco, building inspector.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Dan Greene and Jeffrey Swain.

“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 he had nothing to add to the agenda.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of the Minutes of the November 6, 2014 and November 20, 2014

JP moved to approve the minutes of November 6, 2014, as written in draft.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked for the following change:

Agenda item 6, page 16: change “JP said that failure meaning losing an election” to “JP said that failure means losing an election”.

BM said that any set of minutes will inevitably have some subjectivity, but “I find these minutes lacking in so many areas that I will not vote to approve them.”

CW asked BM to be more specific.

BM said that he had moved to abandon work on the definitions, and BM said that the chair had shouted him down. BM said that the minutes did not reflect CW shouting down BM. BM asked why JP had not included this incident.

CW said that the minutes exclude emotional content, as per the guidelines of New Hampshire Local Government Center’s Minutes 101. (See planning board minutes, May 17, 2012, agenda item 4e, authorizing JP to use LGC’s Minutes 101. See LGC’s Minutes 101: “The focus of the minutes should be to record the important and relevant things that occurred at the meeting, not bickering or insults. Negative sentiments expressed by board members or members of the public need not be avoided entirely, if the comments are relevant; it is the inclusion of the inflammatory words that should be avoided.”)

BM asked why then did the minutes say that the town administrator had left “in anger.”

JP asked BM to cite that part of the minutes where the “shouting down” incident was supposed to have happened.

LK referred to the following passage:

“BM moved to abandon the definitions project.

“No one seconded the motion at this time.”

JP said that the minutes recorded what happened accurately.

LK said, “no one seconded it because we were advised not to.” LK said that CW had not allowed the motion.

BM said, “because the motion never got made.”

JP said, “no one seconded the motion AT THIS TIME. Eventually, someone did second the motion.”

BM asked why CW’s objection to the motion was not noted.

JP said that CW’s objection was not noted because the motion went forward.

LK disagreed.

Board members discussed whether CW had “shouted down” BM.

BM said that he wanted “to point out that we are not getting minutes that satisfy me.”

CW pointed out that the minutes are already 19 pages.

BM asked JP how did he know that town administrator Mike Williams had left the meeting in anger.

JP said that he knew that town administrator Mike Williams had left the meeting in anger, because JP saw the town administrator leave. JP suggested that, if the board does not want to say that the Mike Williams left the meeting “in anger,” then perhaps the minutes should say instead that Mike Williams “left despite the fact that the chair pleaded with him to stay.”

BM said that he would prefer that description.

LK said that he would not prefer that description. LK suggested that the minutes should say that Mike Williams “left disgusted.”

BM suggested that the minutes should say that Mike Williams left “frustrated or maybe just hungry.” BM said, “there’s a lot of interpretation here.”

BM referred to his motion (on November 6, 2014) to rescind the board’s prior vote that the shared driveway in the Wood subdivision is a subdivision road under the planning board’s jurisdiction. (See planning board minutes, August 7, 2014, agenda item 5: “Vote that the application is incomplete because the shared driveway has no road construction plan and no request for a waiver of the requirement for a road construction plan meeting the requirements of the subdivision regulations: carried 2 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP and CW. Voting “no”: BM. Abstaining: none.)”) BM referred to JP’s objection (on November 6, 2014):

“JP objected that BM’s motion is out of order because BM’s motion is to reverse a board decision in which BM did not vote on the winning side.”

BM complained that there was no such rule in the board’s rules of procedure.

JP asked what was BM’s point. JP said that he did make the objection.

BM asked for the grounds of JP’s objection.

JP said that BM should have asked for the grounds when JP made his objection, not when the board is discussing the minutes.

BM said that he was asking for the grounds now.

CW said that the objection was standard from Robert’s Rules of Order. CW said that the board had used this rule before. CW said that the chair can use those rules when the planning board’s rules do not address a situation. “Nothing covers rescinding a vote in the rules of procedure. So instead of letting chaos rule, I go to the next order, which is Robert’s Rules. And Robert’s Rules are very clear on this, and we have had this discussion before.” CW noted that the board had started this practice when the board considered the AHG project (Stagecoach Station). (See planning board minutes, June 21, 2012, agenda item 5, and July 5, 2012, agenda item 5: CW and PH could not move to reconsider the board’s June 21 vote on abandonment because CW and PH did not vote on the winning side.) CW said, “the reality was, I gave you a way to get what you wanted out of it.” CW said that the board has become unpredictable in changing its mind.

BM said that, on November 6, “was the only time twice in the same night have I been denied the right to make a motion. Something is not right here.”

JP said that, as a matter of historical fact, the account of his objection to BM’s motion is accurate. If BM wants to revisit whether JP’s objection was valid, then, JP pointed out, CW had applied the rule to JP in the Rustic Crust case, where JP could not move to reconsider the board’s vote on whether Rustic Crust was a bakery. (See planning board minutes, June 5, 2014, agenda item 5, and June 24, 2014: JP could not move to reconsider the board’s site plan approval because JP did not vote on the winning side.) No board member objected to the rule then.

LK said that the board should not be doing anything if it is not in the board’s own rules of procedure.

JP said that the New Hampshire Local Government Center had recommended following the rule of Robert’s Rules for the Rustic Crust case.

LK asked whether the board had adopted Robert’s Rules of Order as part of the board’s rules of procedure.

CW said that he, as chair, will use Robert’s Rules of Order when the board’s rules do not address a situation.

BM disagreed with the use of Robert’s Rules of Order.

CW asked whether LK or BM wanted to change something in the minutes specifically.

PH said that he wanted to “get that thing out of there about Mike leaving angry. That’s, that’s hanging out our dirty laundry.” PH said, “It’s just an opinion.”

BM said, “It’s just gratuitous.”

JP said that he would agree to “Mike Williams left the meeting.”

BM referred to his complaint that CW should have included BM in the selection of KV Partners. (See planning board draft minutes, November 6, 2014, agenda item 8.) BM said that he is an engineer and that he had said that including BM in the selection might have been in the town’s best interest. BM thought that this “town’s best interest” argument should have been in the minutes.

JP said that the minutes described BM’s complaint as follows:

“BM’s complaint was that CW engaged KV Partners LLC without consulting the full planning board and specifically without consulting BM.”

JP asked whether BM wanted a notation that BM is some kind of professional.

BM said no. BM just wanted recorded his question asking why inviting BM into the process would not have been in the town’s best interest. BM wanted to know why this question is not in the record.

JP said that BM’s question was not in the record because he had summarized the substance of the complaint, which was “BM’s complaint was that CW engaged KV Partners LLC without consulting the full planning board and specifically without consulting BM.” JP asked, “Is that inaccurate?”

CW said, “It looks like it summarizes everything.”

BM asked, “But what about the question about the town’s best interest?”

LK said that he would think that the board would consult an engineer on the board.

CW said that he understood, but the objecting board members BM and LK are ignoring the conditions under which CW made his decision.

CW asked JP to list the changes that the board had agreed to make so far.

JP said that the board had agreed to change “meaning losing” to “means losing” and “Mike Williams left the meeting in anger” to “Mike Williams left the meeting”.

LK asked when JP was elected secretary.

CW said that JP had been elected secretary last April. CW noted that state statute (RSA 31:128) and the board’s rules of procedure (section II, 7) refer to the board secretary office.

LK said that he had never heard of the planning board having a member of the board as a secretary.

JP said that the Office of Energy and Planning’s The Planning Board in New Hampshire, A Handbook for Local Officials recommends a secretary as a board member (page I-6, 2013 edition). JP said that the subdivision regulations require the secretary to countersign the chair’s signature on approved plats. (Subdivision regulations section 5, F, 3.)

BM asked when the subdivision regulations created the requirement for a secretary.

JP said that it had happened long before BM came on the planning board.

Vote to approve the minutes of November 6, 2014, with the changes that JP and PH requested: failed 2 – 3 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP and CW. Voting “no”: PH, BM, and LK. Abstaining: none.)

JP asked who would redo the minutes.

BM asked whether JP, as secretary, was obliged to redo the minutes.

JP said that his obligation was to the draft minutes. The board owns the approved minutes. PH, BM, and LK are responsible for redoing the minutes.

LK said that he would see the minutes to be redone.

JP reminded LK that the changes to the draft minutes would have to be itemized in the next minutes.

JP moved to approve the minutes of November 20, 2014, as written in draft.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP said that he had misspelled Denis Beaudoin’s name as “Denis Beauoin” in a few places.

LK said that the meeting of November 20 had been a joint meeting of the planning board and the zoning board of adjustment (ZBA). LK asked whether the ZBA should be part of approving the minutes of November 20.

JP said no. The minutes under consideration are the planning board’s minutes. The ZBA is responsible for its own minutes.

LK said that he wanted input from the ZBA.

CW disagreed.

Vote to approve the minutes of November 20, 2014, with the change that JP requested: failed 2 – 2 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP and CW. Voting “no”: BM and LK. Abstaining: PH.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments

CW said that, after reviewing the last two meetings, he could not support moving forward with zoning amendments. CW said that two board members (JP and BM) had been against moving forward with the zoning amendments. CW asked for feedback from board members.

PH said that he wanted to proceed on the definitions that the board had considered at its November 20 meeting.

JP said that he would stand behind the board’s vote on November 6 to abandon the definitions project.

LK said that he wanted to proceed with a zoning amendment.

BM said that he was unwilling to move forward with revising definitions.

RC agreed with BM.

CW opened the meeting to public input.

Jesse Pacheco said that the purpose of the zoning-revision project was to fix only a few definitions. Jesse Pacheco in no shape, manner, or form wants to fix all of the definitions. Jesse Pacheco wants to fix three or five definitions. Jesse Pacheco is bothered that the board does not want to fix the definitions that he wants to fix.

Carole Dodge claimed that board had voted to “reapply certain ones with the recommendation of the zoning board, the building inspector, and others because those are problematic ones that we have had issues with throughout the year.”

Jesse Pacheco said that he was leaving the meeting not angry but disgusted.

BM said that he would support moving forward with revising definitions if someone would move the board to do so.

CW and JP said that the zoning amendments are not really coming out of the planning board; they are coming from employees of the board of selectmen. The amendments should come from the board of selectmen. (RSA 675:3, I.)

LK said that he wanted the town to see the amendments as coming from the planning board.

PH claimed that the planning board had done absolutely nothing since the board had revoked the conditional approval of AHG Properties’ Stagecoach Station (on August 15, 2013). PH moved the board to work on the list of rules that the board brought up at its last meeting and move ahead.

LK seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW emphasized that the zoning amendments are not coming from the planning board. They are coming from the board of selectmen. The planning board would have to have a hearing on such amendments anyway.

LK said that town officials had been leaving planning board meetings in disgust.

JP said that LK is complaining that the planning board is dysfunctional. LK’s complaint is all the more reason why the board of selectmen should do the amendments.

Mike Williams said that the only reason that he and other selectmen’s employees was involved was because CW had e-mailed him “inviting us into the process.”

Vote to work on the list of rules that the board brought up at its last meeting and move ahead: carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: JP and CW. Abstaining: none.)

The board discussed the current definition of “JUNK YARDS,” which says, “A legally licensed facility for the storage of junk as defined in RSA 236:91,II, III, IV, and RSA 236:112, I, III, IV and V (c).”

Town administrator Mike Williams explained that a need for the new definition arose because of a complaint against a specific property owner. Mike Williams said that the term “legally licensed” creates a loophole allowing unlicensed facilities to have as many junk cars as the facilities want. Mike Williams explained by analogy. He said that the zoning ordinance could define “apple” as a round, red fruit with seeds, and the zoning ordinance could have a regulation that apples shall be cut into six pieces. A person having an apple cut into four pieces would be exempt from the six-pieces regulation because his fruit would not be an “apple” as defined.

CW said that an unlicensed junk yard would not be permitted anywhere in town, just the same as legally licensed junk yards are not permitted anywhere in town, because an unlicensed junk yard would not fit any of the uses listed in zoning ordinance article 2, table 1.

JP said that an unlicensed junk yard would not be permitted anywhere in town, just the same as legally licensed junk yards are not permitted anywhere in town, because an unlicensed junk yard would not fit any of the uses listed in zoning ordinance article 2, table 1.

CW emphasized the permissive regulation of the zoning ordinance: “Uses that are not expressly stated as permitted uses, accessory uses, or special exceptions are prohibited.”

PH said that the new definition “is going to square up some stuff, it’s going to allow us to lower the boom on some of the guys that have been taking the shortcut out of this.” PH called for an end to discussion. PH moved to approve revising the definition of “JUNK YARDS” to say, “A facility as defined in RSA 236:112, I,II, IV and V (c).”

Vote to approve revising the definition of “JUNK YARDS” to say, “A facility as defined in RSA 236:112, I,II, IV and V (c).”: carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: JP and CW. Abstaining: none.)

LK moved to approve revising zoning ordinance article 9 to say as follows:

Signs of whatever size and material shall be a permitted accessory use in the Commercial and Light Industrial/Commercial districts of the Town and on the premises of businesses or permitted industry in other districts, provided that any such signs do not constitute a nuisance by emitting an unreasonable amount of light or noise and are compatible with the surrounding area.

The current zoning ordinance article 9 says as follows:

Signs of whatever size and material shall be a permitted accessory use in the Commercial and Light Industrial/Commercial districts of the Town and on the premises of businesses or permitted industry in other districts, provided that any such signs do not constitute a nuisance, in the opinion of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, by emitting an unreasonable amount of light or noise and are compatible with the surrounding area.

The proposed revision deletes the phrase “in the opinion of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.”

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

BM said that he was in favor of the revision because it would relieve the ZBA of the responsibility of deciding whether any given sign is appropriate.

PH said that he was in favor of the revision.

CW said that he was against the revision because it would empower the code enforcement officer with very vague conditions.

LK said that any person not liking the code enforcement officer’s decision could appeal that decision to the ZBA.

JP called for a vote because the board had had a thorough discussion of this proposal at the November 20 meeting.

Vote to approve revising zoning ordinance article 9 say as follows:

“Signs of whatever size and material shall be a permitted accessory use in the Commercial and Light Industrial/Commercial districts of the Town and on the premises of businesses or permitted industry in other districts, provided that any such signs do not constitute a nuisance by emitting an unreasonable amount of light or noise and are compatible with the surrounding area.”

carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: JP and CW. Abstaining: none.)

LK moved to approve revising zoning ordinance article 2, description of the Suburban District, to say as follows:

Suburban: This district is also primarily residential, but is a transition between the Urban and Rural districts. It may also be used for some professional and commercial uses. The entirety of This district is serviced by municipal sewer and the Pennechuck Aqueduct Company.

Zoning ordinance article 2, description of the Suburban District, currently says as follows:

Suburban: This district is also primarily residential, but is a transition between the Urban and Rural districts. It may also be used for some professional and commercial uses. This district is now, or may be in the foreseeable future, serviced by municipal sewer and the Pittsfield Aqueduct Company.

BM seconded the motion.

Discussion:

BM said that the change would redraw the boundary of the Suburban District.

JP said that the change would be a really bad idea because it would redraw the boundary of the Suburban District.

BM said that the Suburban District was set up to be within the infrastructure boundaries. But the zoning map extended the Suburban District beyond those boundaries. The change will redraw the boundary of the Suburban District, and BM said that he supports this change.

CW said that the zoning-district map would have to be amended separately.

BM asked Mike Williams whether the amendment would change the zoning-district map.

Mike Williams said that he did not know.

JP said that the amendment is clear. If the zoning ordinance says, “The entirety of This district is serviced by municipal sewer and the Pennechuck Aqueduct Company,” then that is where the district will be. JP said that redrawing the zoning-district map in this way would be a really bad idea.

BM repeated his support to change the boundary of the Suburban District.

PH suggested approving the amendment now and seeing whether the town would have to change the zoning-district map later.

JP thought that the three supporting board members should follow PH’s suggestion and have a hearing on the proposal.

LK agreed with the idea to have a public hearing.

CW said that he had many concerns.

Carole Dodge discussed the new notice requirements of RSA 675:7.

LK asked CW whether CW would do the legal research on this district-boundary change.

CW said that he would prefer that someone else do the research. CW said that he was very concerned about this amendment.

BM suggested adding the phrase “and to redraw the zoning line accordingly.”

CW said that the amendment had to be made to the map.

JP disagreed. JP cited the amendment to the zoning-district map in 2005. JP said that the amendment under discussion is clear, especially if the proposal includes “and to redraw the zoning line accordingly.”

BM agreed.

JP said that he wanted to be clear that he is against this proposal.

LK refused to agree to BM’s change to the proposed amendment.

Mike Williams said that he would refer the question to “someone.”

The board deferred until December 18 consideration of the proposal to redraw the boundary of the Suburban District.

LK moved to revise the introductory sentence of zoning ordinance article 3 to say as follows:

“In the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter, all words other than those defined specifically below shall have the meanings implied by their context in this chapter or their ordinarily accepted meanings.”

The introduction sentence of zoning ordinance article 3 currently says as follows:

“For the purpose of this ordinance, certain terms or words herein shall be interpreted or defined as follows:”

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

BM asked what is wrong with the current sentence.

Mike Williams explained that the new sentence had come from “several other jurisdiction zoning ordinances.” Mike Williams explained what he thought the new sentence means.

PH said, “Well, that pretty much does it.”

BM said that he liked the new sentence better now that he understood it.

JP said that he was concerned that the new sentence might conflict with case law, so JP said that he was against the new sentence.

Vote to revise the introductory sentence of zoning ordinance article 3 to say as follows:

“In the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter, all words other than those defined specifically below shall have the meanings implied by their context in this chapter or their ordinarily accepted meanings.”

carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: JP and CW. Abstaining: none.)

LK moved to revise the zoning ordinance definition of “church” to say as follows:

CHURCH: A facility which is primarily used for the gathering of a congregation or a portion of its members for the purpose of religious worship and rites.

The current zoning ordinance definition of “church” says as follows:

CHURCH: A place of worship either indoors or outside, including a parish house and rectory.

PH seconded the motion.

LK liked the new definition.

JP said that he would not support the new definition because he had not had time to study it.

PH said that the new definition looked good to him.

Vote to revise the zoning ordinance definition of “church” to say as follows:

CHURCH: A facility which is primarily used for the gathering of a congregation or a portion of its members for the purpose of religious worship and rites.

failed 2 – 2 – 1. (Voting “yes”: PH and LK. Voting “no”: JP and CW. Abstaining: BM.)

AGENDA ITEM 6: Selectman’s Report – Larry Konopka, Selectman Ex Officio – Gerard LeDuc, Alternate

LK said that the board of selectmen was working on budget matters. LK asked whether the planning board wanted money for training added to next year’s budget.

LK asked CW whether CW had talked to town administrator Mike Williams about the problem of two planning board members or alternates (LK and GL) serving on the board of selectmen.

CW said no.

LK said that the highway agent, George Bachelder, had asked for a survey of Shaw Road as a prelude to paving it, and the board of selectmen has approved the survey.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Members’ Concerns

LK moved “to discontinue having a sitting board member be the secretary and recorder and prepare the minutes of the planning board.”

JP objected that LK’s motion is out of order because it violates RSA 673:9, I:

“The term of every officer and chairperson elected by a local land use board shall be one year.”

BM offered to second LK’s motion.

PH thought that “they serve at the will and pleasure of the board.”

BM said, “I believe that a board officer can be removed by a vote of the board at any time.”

CW sustained JP’s objection.

BM moved to eliminate the office of board secretary effective immediately.

JP repeated his objection on the basis of RSA 673:9, I.

CW sustained JP’s objection.

LK agreed with BM that the board could eliminate the office of board secretary effective immediately.

JP said that the board has no authority to discontinue an office midterm.

Mike Williams said, “I’m going to have to step in. That is absolutely false. There is plenty of case law that says that the appointing authority has sole authority to remove as well. That’s the same way it works at the state level. Any position appointed by the governor can be removed by the governor. Any position appointed by the select board can be removed by the select board. The ability to remove is implicit in the ability to appoint. Otherwise, you could never get rid of any appointed position ever.”

CW disagreed with Mike Williams. The chair’s term, for example, is an inviolable one year.

Mike Williams claimed that the board’s rules of procedure “do state that the chair serves for one year or until a new one is elected by the board.”

BM repeated his belief that the board can discontinue a board office.

JP asked for a ruling that BM’s motion is out of order.

CW sustained JP’s objection.

LK complained that the current rules of procedure refer to a seven-member board.

BM asked what was the basis to rule BM’s motion out of order.

JP cited RSA 673:9, I.

RC cited RSA 673:13 and said that the only way to remove JP from the recording secretary position was to remove JP from the board.

JP agreed with RC.

LK moved to hire another recording secretary that is not a sitting board member.

CW ruled LK’s motion out of order. CW said that he did not know what to do with a board that is constantly changing its mind.

BM moved the board to request JP’s resignation.

No one seconded BM’s motion.

LK said that he was leaving the meeting in disgust.

PH said that he had been looking for some way to remove JP, but, now that LK has left, the matter is moot.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Public Input

Dan Greene asked whether JP had the filing duties of a town-hall staffer.

CW said no. The board has an administrative secretary (Dee Fritz) for town-hall staff duties. CW explained that the board has a general secretary (JP), a recording secretary (JP), and an administrative secretary (Dee Fritz).

Dan Greene said that JP should be doing the filing duties of a town-hall staffer.

Carole Dodge delivered a long statement of her opinion that JP is a bad recording secretary. Carole Dodge also stated her opinion that the chair and other officers can be voted out at any time. Carole Dodge said that CW does a poor job of running the meetings. Carole Dodge admitted that she had been condescending in tonight’s meeting, but she made excuse for herself.

BM interrupted Carole Dodge and said, “This is not funny.”

Jeffrey Swain said that a board member should not be the recording secretary because the board had spent 45 minutes arguing about the minutes.

Dan Greene asked whether an audio recording of the meeting were available.

CW said yes.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of December 4, 2014: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of December 4, 2014, is adjourned at 8:59 P.M.

Minutes approved: December 18, 2014

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on December 9, 2014, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on December 4, 2014, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on December 5, 2014, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary