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

DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Acting Chairman.

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Bill Miskoe (BM), Acting Chairman, Larry Konopka (LK), Selectman Ex Officio, Dan Schroth (DS), Jim Pritchard (JP), Dan Green (DG), Ted Mitchell (TM), Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate, Hank Fitzgerald (HF), Alternate, Dina Condodemetraky (DC), Recording Secretary, and Perci Lemieux, Recording Secretary Trainee.

Members Absent:
Richard Hunsberger (RH)

Alternate (CW) was asked to sit at table for meeting in place of missing member.

Others Present:

Matt Monahan (MM), Regional Planner, Central NH Regional Planning Commission
Laura Spector (LS), Town Attorney
Kyle Parker (KP), Building Inspector

ITEM 3. Agenda Review

(DS) would like to discuss goals of Zoning while (MM) is present.

ITEM 4. Approval of February 4, 2010 Minutes

(LK) Motion to approve Minutes as written. (CW) Seconded

Discussion: (LK) wants to change on Page 5, Paragraph 2 – change “fuzzy” to “improper”.

Vote: Carried 7-0 unanimous in favor to approve with revision.

ITEM 5. Public Hearing Continued: Master Plan Review

Public Hearing Re-Opened:

(LK) proposed to hold off on talking about this till after the new Planning Board members are instated in March. He proposed the PB and ZBA get together for part of that discussion.

Susan Munszinger added that she felt the PB needed to discuss the Master Plan at length but ZBA input is a little late and not necessary at this point.
(JP) sees no reason not to adopt the Master Plan but would like to review it further and feels the rest of the PB is at the same point.
(BM) read the document and does not see that it varies that much from the 2000 Master Plan proposal so a lengthy discussion might not be necessary. He is ready to vote.
(CW) agrees with (BM). No benefit of waiting further.
(DS) We don’t want to adopt this and forget it. He noted he had a few points he would like to discuss during the Public Hearing.

(DG) Motion for Board to accept Master Plan as submitted. (JP) Seconded.

Discussion: (DS) Elderly housing zoning needed to encourage our older residents to remain in town. There is not enough being done for them. Economic picture shows higher employment rate, lower overall income with larger tax rate, which is a struggle for residents. “I am highly concerned about Town becoming more restrictive.”

(BM) in fear of getting off topic, asked others for further input, much to dismay of (DS) who had more to add.

(LK) stated he cannot support adding a five-acre lot size requirement on Upper City Road at this time. Ralph Odell, who was present, was asked to comment. He stated the concept is to maintain rural quality of the community. The lots would be larger to maintain greenery and wildlife. It is only a recommendation albeit not actually “implementable”.

(BM) Would the committee revise the draft if it would help the Master Plan gain acceptance? (JP) why is five-acre lot not “implementable”? Mr. Odell responded it could be done, but implied it would be difficult. Susan Munszinger added that the five-acre lot concept might promote ability for agriculture in the Town.

(CW) Reminder: We (the PB) do not implement anything; the Town does. We should not remove specific topics. Any real changes would merit discussion with the public first in any case. The more info we get to the Town, the better chance we have to get change to happen.

(BM) asked (LK) to expound on his reasoning behind the objection.
(LK) cluster zoning is a sufficient tool for open land and open fields, and changing the zoning could be a hardship for the people living in that area. Their input is needed here. (LK) emphasized that this was just his opinion.

(DG) don’t lose focus of what the Master Plan is. Approval on this is way overdue. We are not voting on what is in it or not.

(JP) If we remove the five-acre zoning, it will never be talked about again.
(DS) agreed with (DG) and (JP).

Vote: Carried 6-1 in favor to approve the Master Plan.

Susan Munszinger – added that the Census is coming out next year. A committee should be convened to look at that data and revise that chapter of the Master Plan. Ralph Odell agreed with Ms. Munszinger. He will come back with a proposal at the next meeting.

(BM) Reminder: Ralph needs assistance on the CIP and is looking for members.

ITEM 6. Public Hearing for an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment filed by William H. Stiles and John V. Learson, 278 Shaw Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 and the Leslie M. Federhen Trust, 18 Range Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-3, Lot 3 and Tax Map R-2, Lot 6.) These properties are owned by said individuals and both properties are located in the RURAL Zone.

Paul Darbyshire – Land Surveyor was present

Public Hearing opened 7:31P.M.

(LK) Motion to accept application as complete (DS) Seconded

Discussion: (KP) was asked if he considered the application complete. He referred to Matt Monahan (MM) for comment. (MM) reviewed his memo to Planning Board dated February 1, 2010.

(JP) Regarding the Mylar, which is to be recorded at Registry of Deeds, is the Town to supply a Mylar to be recorded? (MM) replied: “Yes, that is a good practice.”

(LK) withdrew Motion to accept application to deal with Waivers.
(DS) withdrew Second.

(DG) Motion to grant Waivers as requested in writing (JP) Seconded

Discussion: Mr. Darbyshire, Land Surveyor, representing Mr. Federhen and Stiles presented Waivers:

1. A triangle parcel (Parcel A) being conveyed with Boundary Adjustment from Stiles to Federhen. Abutters will have to be approached to gain access. No new lot being created.
(BM) questioned if in re-arranging the boundaries are Waivers needed?
(MM) clarified difference with RSA676: 4, I (e) Minor Lot Line Adjustment v. Minor Subdivision. Answer: “Yes.”
(JP) The request is to erase one lot line and put in another. So technically, it is a subdivision, which needs Waivers.
2. Topography flat, no wetlands, again no new lots are being created.
3. Survey not tied to USGS Survey elevation or State plane coordinate system; not expedient for small adjustment.
4. Boundary Survey of entire Stiles/Learson property. Both parcels have surveys and plans available for review

Mr. Darbyshire asking for a Waiver of complete boundary surface.

(HF) inquired if there was a need for a Waiver regarding the size of the lots that could be further subdivided in the future? (MM) the trigger is three lots or less. (KP) By adding triangle, he is decreasing the larger lots. The frontage does not change on either lot. Land cannot sustain more with the changes.

Vote: Carried 7-0 unanimous in favor of granting the Waivers as written.

This Board historically never treated Lot Line Adjustments as Subdivisions.
(JP) this could be a minor subdivision, but you start with two lots here and end with two lots. Acres and frontage remain the same. Supported by (MM) facilitating the deed is what finalizes this issue. (JP) asked to poll the Board to see if members agree that this is a Minor Subdivision. The majority agreed.

(DG) Motion that there is no regional impact (JP) Seconded

Vote: Carried 7-0 unanimous in favor.

(LK) Motion that application is complete (DG) Seconded

Discussion: (KP) stated the application is complete.

Vote carried 7-0 unanimous in favor.

Public Hearing opened 8:10pm

None.

Public Hearing closed 8:11pm

(DG) Motion to approve application (CW) Seconded

Discussion: (JP) posed a question on the Mylar requirement. His questions answered with cited Regulations. Mr. Darbyshire will submit Mylar to Board for signature and Registry of Deeds recording.

Vote: Carried 7-0 unanimous in favor to approve application.

Applicant now has 30-day appeal period.

ITEM 7. Public Hearing – Matt Monahan – Rules of Procedure, Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regulations

(MM) presented an overview of the proposal to the Board.

(JP) inquired about changes to the written proposal and was in need of a current revised copy.

(BM) asked if it is the suggestion to have separate major and minor subdivision applications? (MM) “Yes, it would make it easier for the applicant; clearer.”

Opened to public 7:10 P.M.

Ms. Spector gave some comments on the proposed changes. The goal is to ensure compliance.

(LK) Motion to accept Revised Rules of Procedures as proposed by (MM).
(TM) Seconded Motion.

Discussion: (LK) Thanks to Matt and Laura for their time and effort.
(DS) Can our Building Inspector work with the proposed changes?
(KP) Yes, this will be a valuable tool.

Public portion closed. (7:15 P.M.)

Vote: Carried 4 in favor 3 (JP), (DG), (CW) opposed.

ITEM 8. New Business (7:18 P.M.)
Bailey Park Subdivision – Letter Loren H. Rosson, Jr., Attorney

Overview: Letter sent to PB by Attorney Rosson about a 2006 subdivision that was approved with contingent conditions, and clarification on what became of an owners’ association that was to take responsibility of the open space. Only five lots were sold and the Association By-Laws were not put into action. If due diligence was not taken, then the onus must be on the developer. Parties will be ready to speak on this at length at the first meeting in March.

Attorney Spector excused. (7:23 P.M.)

ITEM 9. Selectman’s Report – Larry Konopka, Selectman Ex Officio

None.

ITEM 10. Building Inspector Report

(KP) noted he is working on the Bailey Park issue with (JP). They will be prepared for discussion at first meeting in March.

ITEM 11. Members Concerns

(CW) noted he was “…highly concerned with the Rules of Procedures proposal that was approved by this Board tonight.” He seeks clarification. Did we give away our job to the CNHRPC? He does not know what we voted on as he was unable to get an official final copy. This is going too quickly. (JP) agrees.

(LK) We advised (MM) to get legal counsel to review the proposal at the January 7th meeting. (JP) stated he was not party to that request. (DS) Noted in the January 7, 2010 Minutes (Pg 2-3), it states there was a discussion about approaching the Town attorney. Enlisting the Town attorney was discussed but not ordered by the PB as a whole. (DG) stated that all members should have had a final copy in a timely manner. Some got it and others did not.

(KP) inquired as to why the Rules of Procedures were being displayed on the bulletin board? He will get the Board a complete copy by Monday.
(MM) added that by Feb 3, 2010 all the information was in the office and available. (HF) On December 2, the first packet was given to us.

(DS) asked to finish his statements regarding the Master Plan. He is highly unpleased about being cut off earlier.

Those who agreed with approval of the Rules and Regulation Proposals signed it.

ITEM 12. Public Input

None.

ITEM 13. Adjournment

(LK) Motion to adjourn February 18, 2010 meeting. (TM) Seconded

Discussion: None

Vote: Carried 7-0 unanimous in favor

Meeting adjourned at 8:59 P.M.

Approved: March 4, 2010

_______________________________ ____________________
Bill Miskoe, Acting Chairman Date

II Tapes