February 16, 2012 Minutes

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263

DATE: Thursday, February 16, 2012

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Members present: Jim Pritchard (JP, associate member), Pat Heffernan (PH, associate member), Gerard Leduc (GL, selectmen’s ex officio), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), Ted Mitchell (TM, chair), and Ray Conner (RC, alternate), and Peter Dow (PD, alternate).

Members absent: Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex officio alternate).

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Hank Fitzgerald.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes of January 5, 2012

TM asked whether all members had listened to the tape and verified JP’s verbatim transcript.

CW said that he had listened to the tape although the tape was difficult to understand with many voices talking over one another. CW moved to approve the minutes of January 5, 2012, as JP revised them with verbatim transcript.

GL seconded the motion. GL said that he had listened to the tape.

Discussion: None.

Vote to approve the minutes of January 5, 2012, as JP revised them with verbatim transcript: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of February 2, 2012

CW moved to approve the minutes of February 2, 2012, as written in draft.

JP seconded the motion.

Discussion:

GL said that he thought that the tape malfunction lasted much longer than the 15 minutes indicated by the times that JP listed next to each speaker.

CW said that the length of the meeting compared with the length of the tape indicated that 15 minutes was accurate.

PH agreed that 15 minutes was accurate.

Vote to approve the minutes of February 2, 2012, as written in draft: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: none.)

GL said that he still thought that the tape-malfunction time was inaccurate.

CW asked what was wrong with the tape-malfunction time.

GL said that he thought that the tape malfunction lasted more than 15 minutes.

JP asked whether GL had listened to the tape.

GL said that he had not listened to that tape.

CW said that the board had adjourned the meeting when it discovered the problem.

JP said that he knew how long the tape malfunctioned because JP was keeping track in JP’s notebook of the time when each speaker spoke.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Ballot Article to Change Planning Board from Elected to Appointed

CW said that he had read the selectmen’s minutes, and CW was surprised that the selectmen were getting involved, especially now, with the selectmen having their own representative to the planning board, and with two planning board members up for reelection. The selectmen should let the electoral process take care of itself. The selectmen’s minutes do not explain why the selectmen are doing this.

JP suggested that the selectmen’s representative, GL, could explain why the selectmen were proposing to change the planning board from elected members to appointed members. JP said that there had been two town meeting votes for an elected planning board, and two town meeting votes against going back to an appointed planning board.

GL said that the selectmen think that the elected planning board is not doing the job for the people.

CW asked what was the evidence on which the selectmen based their opinion? CW said that the selectmen’s minutes do not say why the selectmen are doing this. CW said that GL never complained when he was sitting as a planning board member. CW asked GL whether GL should have said something if GL were concerned that the planning board was not doing its job. GL had left the selectmen with no credibility. The selectmen have had a representative at every meeting except one, September 1, 2011. What was GL doing at the planning board meetings if they were so out of control that the planning board must be dismantled? The selectmen have a hard case defending their proposal to the town.

PH said that an elected planning board is as good a way to go as any. An elected board is more democratic than having the selectmen appointing members. PH fears that an appointed board “is a good way to stack the deck if somebody’s got an agenda.” PH could not see what agenda anyone might have. PH did not think that any of the selectmen had “any axe to grind.”

CW repeated that he wanted to see the evidence from the selectmen. The current planning board has had almost perfect attendance. CW has been on the board for three years; good attendance did not happen before. CW was an alternate for two years, and he sat on the board in a voting capacity for 90% of the time. The planning board has met every other week and had articles in the paper, but now everything is supposedly a mess. The selectmen use the word “autonomous,” but they did not even invite the planning board to the selectmen’s meeting, and the selectmen have done everything that they could to undermine the planning board. Maybe the planning board should have a hearing on how the board of selectmen is conducting its business. The selectmen’s representative to the planning board should have informed the planning board that there was a problem. The planning board minutes have nothing about the selectmen’s representative complaining. To the contrary, the minutes show the selectmen’s representative voting for a lot of things. Why did the selectmen not ask the selectmen’s representative where was he and what is happening, if there were such a mess? It is clear that the selectmen proposed the appointed planning board to dismantle this planning board. The selectmen went into non-public session. Perhaps they thought that they could get rid of the planning board without waiting. Why could the selectmen not wait three or four weeks until the public votes on the planning board’s work? There are five candidates. Let the public decide. What the selectmen have done is terrible. The voters should see through it.

TM agreed with PH that the selectmen could control the planning board by appointing its members.

PH said that the selectmen have influence on the planning board anyway. PH was not sure of the “pecking order” between the planning board and board of selectmen. Both boards are elected.

CW said that, if the town approves the appointed board on Tuesday, March 13, then Saturday, all board members will be dismissed regardless of which candidates win. The selectmen will be able to pick anyone they want.

PH suggested that the planning board put a letter in the paper opposing the selectmen’s proposal. PH referred to the 25 or 30 people who opposed Amendment No. 3, but the planning board had said that it was going to propose it anyway. The townspeople will make the final decision.

JP said that it was not fair to compare putting something on the ballot when 25 people do not want it, to putting something else on the ballot that was actually voted down twice. The appointed board has been voted down twice, while the elected board has been voted up twice. This situation is not like the frontage issue, where neither side has been able to win. Elected boards have won twice, and appointed boards have lost twice. JP said that CW had an unavoidable observation: The selectmen’s representative has attended every planning board meeting except one. FH had gone out and counted parking spaces. GL had said that the class V standard was necessary to make the subdivision regulations work. The unavoidable conclusion is that the selectmen are attacking the end product, not the way that the planning board has been working all year long. The selectmen should not attack the end product. The planning board has a function. State law does not allow the selectmen to do the planning board’s job. The selectmen want to control the planning board by appointing their own people.

CW said that the issue is worse than JP describes. No one thinks that the appointed-board proposal will pass. The selectmen have put this proposal on the ballot to undermine the planning board’s work by confusing the voters. The selectmen have won without even having the election. The selectmen’s proposal is another level of voter fraud. Three people on the planning board can change at this election cycle: two elected members and the selectmen’s representative. How much more control is necessary?

JP agreed with CW. The selectmen are trying to control the election.

CW said that, in October, GL said that the class V frontage requirement was something that the planning board needed to do now. No one ever talked about this being the end of everything. No one ever talked about going to class VI. CW understands why the class VI owners feel singled out. Almost every decision that the planning board makes will make someone feel singled out. The planning board is trying to get ahead of that problem so that the board can have a working environment. After the planning board has worked very hard, the selectmen try to dismantle everything. CW thinks that the selectmen will not get away with what they are trying to do, but CW hopes that the selectmen will not have done so much damage that the subsequent board has the problems that today’s board now faces. What makes the next board different than this one? CW has been voting for three years. Usually, CW was in the minority. CW did not try to rip the board apart. Last year, no one talked about JP hijacking the board, but CW voted against what the board did last year. The board voted and moved on. Now the board cannot get to that point anymore. Nothing makes sense. Enough is enough in this town. Play by the rules. People are not playing by the rules. At the school board, CW would never have had such meetings as the planning board has had, with people accusing one another and talking over each other. Such meetings do not have to happen. It does not have to be like the “wild west.”

RC countered CW’s statement that the selectmen were undermining the planning board. RC said that the selectmen were making themselves look bad. RC said that the selectmen’s proposal offended her.

JP agreed that the selectmen were making themselves look bad, but JP said that the selectmen were also making the planning board look bad.

TM agreed that the selectmen were putting questions in people’s minds about what is happening on the planning board and whether their votes matter.

JP said that, in a situation like this, it is well known that, where there is a lot of confusion, people vote “no” because they think that “no” is the safer vote. The board of selectmen has hurt the planning board tremendously by stirring up a lot of confusion. The confusion will encourage voters to say “I don’t know what is going on, so I’m going to vote ‘no.’” That is what the selectmen are trying to make people do.

TM asked whether there were a consensus to put a letter in the paper.

CW said that something must be done.

PH agreed and asked what would the letter say?

TM said that the letter would say that the planning board is autonomous from the selectmen. The selectmen are recommending against giving voters the right to vote who shall be on the planning board. The planning board as a whole thinks that that is wrong; voters should have the right to vote who shall be on the planning board.

CW said that the planning board should avoid pointing fingers.

JP agreed that pointing fingers would be unhelpful. The planning board has a proposal, and the planning board should stay on message and explain why the public should support it. CW had explained the situation perfectly: every time when the planning board makes a decision, someone will not like it. The planning board decided that proposing class V frontage would be best for the town. JP is concerned about what the selectmen have done, but JP did not know how many letters the planning board can put in the paper, and the planning board should not spread itself too thin.

PH asked how much time was there before the election.

TM said that the election was March 13.

JP said that letters have to be in the paper two weeks before the election. There are only two more letter cycles left.

CW moved the board to authorize TM to put a letter in the paper explaining the planning board’s position on the selectmen’s proposal to change the planning board from elected members to appointed members.

JP seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to authorize TM to put a letter in the paper explaining the planning board’s position on the selectmen’s proposal to change the planning board from elected members to appointed members: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: none.)

GL said that he voted against the letter in the paper because GL was one of the three selectmen who voted for the proposal to change the planning board from elected members to appointed members.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Ballot Article to Increase Planning Board from 5 to 7 Members

CW said that this is another interesting proposal. If the selectmen do not get the planning board to appointed, then the selectmen will try to expand the planning board to seven members. The town just voted to go to five members. There have been people complaining about that vote since it happened. This is a chance to change that vote. CW started as an alternate, just like PD and RC; CW was expecting to learn. CW was immediately seated as a voting member. CW sat as a voting member about 90% of the time because, on the seven-member board, members do not attend. People run uncontested, so almost anyone can run in. If someone wants to keep CW off the seven-member board, CW could just wait until he can run uncontested. Many races are uncontested. Look it up, many boards have no members running. The last seven-member planning board spent $9000, and CW voted against all of what they proposed. That seven-member board brought six articles to the town meeting, and none of the members knew what was in those articles. In that proposal were many new definitions, including one for “frontage.” That “frontage” definition included not only class VI highways but also private roads. The planning board never even discussed the liability or risk to the town from allowing private road frontage. It did not pass the town meeting, but the planning board voted for it. One of the articles, on home occupations, was changed so much that not one of the seven planning board members voted to send it to the town meeting. If there is anything productive about the seven-member board, CW missed it. The planning board needs people who will attend, do the work, and make the votes. Everyone claims to know the RSA’s, but only board members are accountable. To be accountable, board members must work. Getting seven people who are willing to do the work will be difficult. This year’s five-member board did everything that a seven-member board could do.

TM said that he did not like the probability of uncontested elections. Uncontested elections happen frequently with larger boards.

PH asked why did the selectmen propose to increase the planning board size?

GL said that the planning-board-expansion proposal would only “be brought up” if the appointed planning board goes into place. Then the town meeting will have to decide the size of the board.

JP said that GL’s account was not what the warrant article says.

GL said that his account was the assumption of the board of selectmen.

JP said, “So, are you telling me that, if the appointed board does not pass and if the elected board stands, they’re not going to try to expand it?”

GL said, “As far as I know, no.”

JP said that the expansion proposal is on the warrant.

CW said that he had been trying to get the warrant, but he had not succeeded.

JP said that the expansion proposal is Article 30.

TM asked for clarification that Article 30 is at the business session.

JP said yes.

CW said that, from what he remembered, the proposal to go from five to seven is on the warrant.

JP said yes. JP did not know how the selectmen would do what GL is describing. Nothing on the warrant describes what GL is describing.

PH said that he still did not know the reason for the expansion.

GL repeated that the town meeting will decide the planning board size if the board changes from elected to appointed members.

PH said that he understood that, but why seven members instead of five?

GL said that the selectmen wanted to let the people decide the size.

PH asked why had the selectmen brought this question forward.

GL said that, if the appointed board goes, the town has to decide the size.

CW said that, if the selectmen get the appointed board, then the selectmen can do whatever they want with it. CW said that GL’s description of the board expansion was not how CW read it.

TM said that the selectmen may prefer a seven-member board because getting four members to agree is more difficult than getting three members to agree.

PH said that he agreed with CW in relation to board size. A larger board will have attendance problems. If the planning board has to listen to seven members brainstorming, then the board will never get anything done. Seven members are too many.

JP said that the planning board had discussed a similar issue last August when the board discussed how alternates would participate in board meetings. The board agreed that effectively increasing the board size beyond five would add much confusion and chaos, and that situation was not adding two voting members, that situation was just adding non-voting alternates. JP said that he listens to every tape of every meeting, and the board is just about at the saturation point where a person can keep the record without being dedicated to the job. CW had said that, on the five-member board, there are a lot of voices speaking over one another. JP has also listened to tapes of seven-member boards. Those tapes are much harder to understand. The chaos on a seven-member board will be much greater. Reaching consensus on a seven-member board will be much more difficult. All anyone has to do is compare this year’s board to last year’s board.

CW said that chaos had been high even on simple things, such as keeping current on documentation of what the board was proposing for zoning amendment. None of the members had a copy.

JP said that nothing like that ever happened on the five-member board. Members were always promptly notified, and members always had everything that they needed.

CW said that a seven-member board presents logistical problems of conducting itself.

PH agreed. The seven-member board has advantages and disadvantages, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

CW said that the seven-member board had had a lot of confusion and logistical problems in doing its zoning proposal. The seven-member board had had problems getting people who were willing to do the work.

JP said that he was concerned about GL’s description of the planning-board-expansion proposal. If the town meeting defeats the appointed planning board proposal, and if voters think that they do not need to attend the business session, then they may get an unpleasant surprise.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Members Concerns

CW said that he listened to the tape of the February 2 meeting. At the end of the meeting, the board was finally having a dialog. It was unfortunate that it happened only then. It was unfortunate that the board did not keep the hearings on track to do justice to the work that the board did during the year. Everyone one on the board bears some responsibility. All the accusations about JP running the board, the minutes, and so forth—the board should have kept the conversation focused on the amendments under consideration. At the end, the board was finally talking about the issues and how to make things work. CW hopes that whoever is on the board after the election will learn from the experience.

JP asked whether the board would put a letter in the paper explaining the board’s three zoning-amendment proposals.

CW discussed the reasons for Amendment No. 1.

JP said that, since there are two letter cycles left, JP would like to authorize the chair and vice-chair to put a letter in the paper explaining the board’s three zoning-amendment proposals.

CW agreed.

PH asked for confirmation of two letters.

JP said that there would be one letter for the appointed-or-elected board, and one letter for the zoning amendments.

CW agreed.

PH asked whether the letters could be combined.

TM said that combining the letters was not a good idea.

PH agreed to the appointed-or-elected-board letter, but PH did not care about the letter on the zoning amendments.

JP moved to authorize the chair and vice-chair to put a letter in the paper explaining the board’s three zoning amendment proposals.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to authorize TM and CW to put a letter in the paper explaining the board’s three zoning-amendment proposals: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: GL.)

AGENDA ITEM 8: Public Input

Hank Fitzgerald said, “As this board is aware, I’ve been requesting information for some time now. I’m still not satisfied that the information that I’ve been given is a true copy of everything that’s out there. In particular, a board member stated that he discussed this with the town assessor and that they said there were no problems with anything. There was never anything in writing, and I’ve never met a town assessor that didn’t follow it up with a letter, particularly when he’s talking to a board member. There’s also been conversations that LGC said this is legal, that’s legal, this is good, that’s good; again, if you have ever dealt with lawyers, you know that they don’t open their mouths without following it up. There is none of that present.” Hank Fitzgerald said that there had been much conversation about letters of 2003 and 2004 from the town attorney and LGC, but Hank Fitzgerald has seen nothing. Hank Fitzgerald said that there had been many conversations about conversations with Epsom Zoning. Hank Fitzgerald talked to two members personally. Under Right-to-Know, these are public records. If the planning board makes a telephone call, the board must keep a record of it. If a board member meets someone on board business, the board must keep a record of it. These records are supposed to be kept in the town hall. Hank Fitzgerald said that he had still received nothing. “My last letter was five days ago today, and, as Mr. Pritchard can explain, you have five days to respond. You can state that you need more time to put the information together, but I need to get a letter from someone, you can’t just blow it off.”

Hank Fitzgerald said that he knew how contentious the last few months have been. Hank Fitzgerald appreciates the work that the board has done. He disagrees with many decisions, but that happens between any two rational people. Hank Fitzgerald feels that there has been “back bighting” on both sides, and Hank Fitzgerald apologizes to the board. Hank Fitzgerald had no intention of letting it blow up as it did. Hank Fitzgerald was just trying to make points. Hank Fitzgerald does not mind if that is in the minutes, because he means it truthfully. As far as what the selectmen have done, and maybe the planning board’s letter will solve things, there has been contention that the five-member-planning-board article passed because of the way it was written. It is a matter of who wants to take it to court. The selectmen have asked planning board members to come to the board of selectmen and discuss things. For whatever reason, it did not happen. The planning board is autonomous by law, but the town is still small and has to work together. Discussing things is still a good thing. Some of what the selectmen are doing may be knee-jerk. But the concern has been stated by others, Hank Fitzgerald included, that the planning board sees itself as bulletproof because the planning board is elected and autonomous. Even the secretary of state cannot do anything to the planning board for procedural errors. Because this has been going on for two months, the selectmen feel that they have an electorate that they have to respond to. Hank Fitzgerald cannot speak for GL or “the board,” it is just Hank Fitzgerald’s opinion. The selectmen are not trying to control the planning board. A seven-member board must have a four-member majority, which makes agreement more difficult but broader based when agreement happens. The problem is that agreement has become “the three of you.” The selectmen have no response that they can make. The selectmen think that they have to do something because the selectmen are responsible for how every board behaves. Hank Fitzgerald does not want TM to write a letter with a chip. The public is just frustrated.

TM said that he does not write letters with a chip. Even when TM disagrees, TM states the facts as TM sees them.

Hank Fitzgerald said that he is bringing this up because both boards have been damaged. The public sees the planning board as inflexible and doing its own thing. Everyone has their feet in the mud and is looking for a way out.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Adjournment

PH moved to adjourn the meeting.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of February 16, 2012: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of February 16, 2012, is adjourned at 7:52 P.M.

Minutes approved: April 5, 2012

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on February 17, 2012, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on February 16, 2012, and from a copy of the one Town tape that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on February 17, 2012.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

1 Town tape.